Bengaluru man buys liquor worth Rs 2,170, objects to paying Rs 20 for carry bag bearing store's own name and logo; consumer commission calls it unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, orders Tonique to refund Rs 20 and pay Rs 5,000 compensation and Rs 3,000 litigation costs
A consumer court in Bengaluru ruled that charging customers for carry bags featuring a store's logo constitutes an unfair trade practice. The commission ordered Tonique to refund 20 rupees to a customer, pay 5,000 rupees in compensation, and pay 3,000 rupees in litigation costs.
A consumer dispute redressal commission in Bengaluru ruled in favor of a shopper who objected to being charged for a branded carry bag. The customer had purchased liquor worth 2,170 rupees at the high-end retail outlet Tonique and was subsequently charged an extra fee of 20 rupees for a carry bag bearing the store's official name and logo. The customer challenged this additional payment, arguing that consumers should not be compelled to pay money for packaging that serves as advertising material for a retail brand.
The consumer commission declared the practice of charging money for store-branded carry bags to be an unfair trade practice and a clear deficiency in service. In its detailed ruling, the commission ordered Tonique to refund the 20 rupees fee charged to the customer. Additionally, the commission directed the retail store to pay 5,000 rupees in financial compensation to the complainant for the inconvenience caused, alongside an additional 3,000 rupees to cover the litigation costs incurred during the legal proceedings.
For consumers across India, this legal ruling reinforces essential rights against unexpected charges and forced brand advertising by commercial businesses. Retail chains frequently attempt to charge extra money for carry bags containing their brand names, but consumer commissions in India have repeatedly held that providing basic packaging without forcing shoppers to act as walking advertisements is a basic obligation of retail merchants. This decision serves as a useful reminder that consumers can successfully challenge unfair commercial practices in court.
Comments 0