State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Decathlon Sports India Pvt. Ltd. vs Harsimranbir Singh on 11 July, 2025
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB,DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.319 of 2024
Date of institution : 28.06.2024
Reserved on : 07.07.2025
Date of decision : 11.07.2025
1. Decathlon Sports India Pvt. Ltd. having its Regd. office at Survey
No.78/10 A20- Chikkajala Village, Bellary Road, Bangalore-
562157 through its authorized representative Mohit Sharma.
2. Decathlon, Plot C-4, Lower Ground Floor, Wing B, Amarsar Mall,
Circular Road, Nirankari Colony, 143001, Amritsar, Punjab.
.....Appellants/opposite parties
Versus
Harsimranbir Singh S/o Kanwarbir Singh, aged about 28 years R/o
House No.1358, Near Golden Temple, Chawal Mandi, Amritsar,
Punjab, 143001, Ph.No.8872350199
......Respondent/complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission Amritsar, in CC/397/202
Quorum:-
Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Suhail Sehgal, Advocate
For the respondent : Ex-parte
KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER
The instant appeal has been filed by appellant/Opposite party against the majority decision/order dated 29.04.2024 passed by President and one Member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (in short, "District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite parties (in FA No. 319 of 2024 2 short 'OPs'), under the Consumer Protection Act, was allowed while granting the following relief:-
"10. So in the light of above discussion, I am of the considered view that present complaint of the complainant deserves to succeed against the opposite party and the same is hereby allowed with the following directions:-
(i) Opposite party is directed to provide free carry bag to all the customers with or without advertisement on it who purchases articles with further direction to stop unfair trade practice i.e. to charge for the carry bag.
(ii) Opposite party is also directed to refund Rs.12/-
along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Opposite party is also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.7,000/- for causing mental agony, harassment and inconvenience and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant."
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are that the complainant on 01.07.2022, visited the store of OP No.1 for the purpose of shopping and after doing so, he was to pay the bill on the billing counter. The total billing amount was of Rs.770/- and the same was inclusive of price of Decathlon carry bag, which was charged at Rs.12/-. The complainant inquired about the same from executive of OP No.1 at the billing counter and told him that it was the duty of the OP to provide him a free carry bag, as he is the "Take Away Customer", but the executive flatly refused to adhere to the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant was left with no other option except to pay for carry bag. The complainant further stated that FA No. 319 of 2024 3 the said carry bag bears logo of 'Decathlon' in blue colour written over it and when he asked for a simple bag then he was told by the executive that they only sold carry bags of Decathlon. Under the compelled circumstances the complainant took the said carry bag. The OPs have used the complainant as their advertisement agent without his free will. The said act of the OPs in charging Rs.12/- for carry bag amounted to unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Commission and sought directions against the OP No.1 to refund Rs.12/- for illegally charging for decathlon carry bag and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written reply, wherein it raised certain preliminary objection, which are not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. On merits, the OPs stated that sign boards were displayed in the premises of the OPs, which informed the customers that they could bring their own carry bag to the store and/or that multipurpose bags of various size were available for purchase. The complainant was at liberty to bring his own carry bag and he was not forced to purchase the said multipurpose bag. The said multipurpose bag is a product of the OP, which mandatorily requires to be branded. Two types of multipurpose bags were available in its store, the 'paper type' bag could be purchased for Rs.12/- and the cloth type bag for Rs.45/-. The said bag was only bought by the complainant for his convenience and the customers visiting the stores are encouraged to bring their own bags. Sufficient FA No. 319 of 2024 4 signage informing customers about the said practice, stating that "The earth is our playground. Making a small change to your shopping habits can made a big positive impact on our planet". There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence before the District Commission in support of their respective contentions and the District Commission after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the appearing parties, allowed the complaint of the complainant, vide impugned order as above. Aggrieved with the same this appeal has been filed by the appellant /OP.
6. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent/complainant, but he failed to appear despite service. As such, the respondent/complainant was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 24.09.2024.
7 We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, and gone through the written arguments submitted by him as well as record on the file.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants/OPs has vehemently contended that the impugned order is on the face of it erroneous, perverse and against all cannons of justice, equity and good conscience in as much as the District Commission has passed the same hastily and without considering the written arguments and FA No. 319 of 2024 5 the judgments cited by the appellant. The District Commission has failed to consider the fact that all across the appellant's store, signboards are displayed which inform customers that they can bring their own carry bag to the store. There was also sufficient information and signage displayed across the appellant's store at the relevant point in time that multipurpose bags were available for purchase in various size options. The District Commission also failed to consider the fact that multipurpose bags were one of the many products sold by the appellant, which carried their own distinct product sold by the appellant. Being a product of the appellant, the said bag was mandatorily required under India's FDI regime to be branded in the manner stipulated. Being a SBRT, the appellant has to comply with the directions issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, which mandates that products sold by SBRTs are sold under single brand only and the branding happens at the manufacturing stage only. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the invoice/bill issued by the appellant also states the price of the bag and the respondent/complainant has duly accepted the same, while making the purchase. The learned counsel further argued that the appellants provides shopping carts/trolley to all its customers to carry their goods till their car/car parking. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the written reply and prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.
FA No. 319 of 2024 6
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record of the case file.
10. The admitted facts of case are that the respondent/complainant purchased certain items for his personal use from the OP 01.07.2022 worth Rs.770/- and the OP charged Rs.12/- (Ex. C-2) for the carry bag from the complainant. The complainant alleged that he had no intention to purchase the carry bag as it was the duty of the OP to provide him a free carry bag, as he is the "Take Away Customer". He further alleged that the OPs have used the complainant as their advertisement agent without his free will. The said act of the OP in charging Rs.12/- for carry bag amounts to, unfair trade practice on their part. Accordingly, he filed consumer complaint before the District Commission, which was allowed in his favour vide impugned order as above. Aggrieved with the same, the appellants/OPs have preferred the present appeal.
11. The grievance of the appellants/OPs is that the impugned order passed by the District Commission, while holding the appellants culpable for unfair trade practice on account of sale of the carry bag to the respondent/complainant, is erroneous and misplaced, which is liable to be set aside. It has also been submitted that the relief granted by the District Commission is beyond the pleadings and prayer of the respondent/complainant. On the other hand, the case of the respondent/complainant is that he had no intention to purchase the carry bag as it was the duty of the OP to provide him a free carry bag, FA No. 319 of 2024 7 as he is the "Take Away Customer". Moreover, the OPs have used the complainant as their advertisement agent without his free will.
12. Now, we proceed to decide the main issue involved in the present case that whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants/OPs, in charging for the carry bag in question, or not? It has been categorically submitted by the appellant/OP that it never forced the respondent/complainant to purchase the said carry bag as all across the appellant's store, signboards are displayed which inform the customers that they can bring their own carry bag to the store. In support of the said version, the appellants/OPs placed reliance on annexure R-4. From the perusal of the said annexure R-4, we find that the appellant/OP has prominently displayed in the store "Bring your Own Bag" and it has also been displayed that "The Earth is our Playground, making a small change to your shopping habits can make a big positive impact on our Planet". It is neither the case of the respondent/complainant that such signboards were not displayed in the appellant's store nor he had visited the store for the first time and was not aware about the said signboards. Even he has not denied or rebutted this version of the appellants/OPs by filing the rejoinder to the written reply filed by it or otherwise. Further from the perusal of annexure R-3, it reveals that the multipurpose carry bags were available for purchase separately in the appellant's store and were lying along with other sale counters of the products sold by the appellant. It is the discretion of the customers to purchase the said carry bags if they do not bring their own carry bags. It has been FA No. 319 of 2024 8 submitted by the appellants that the multipurpose paper bag was mandatorily required under India's FDI regime to be branded in the manner stipulated. Being a Single Brand Retail Trading (SBRT), the appellant has to comply with the directions issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, which mandates that products sold by SBRTs are sold under single brand only and the branding happens at the manufacturing stage only. Even the paper bag was sold as a separate and single product, which the complainant had opted to buy in the store. The evidence to this effect was led by the appellant before the District Commission as annexure R-6, but the same has been totally overlooked by the District Commission. So far as the plea of the respondent/complainant that the appellants/OPs have used the complainant as their advertisement agent without his free will, is concerned, we have perused the photograph of the carry bag, placed on record by the respondent/complainant as well as the appellants/OPs, and find that on the front of the carry bag it is printed "Sport for All All for Sport", only and there is no advertisement of the name of the appellant company. Only a price tag is printed/pasted on the bottom of the carry bag, which bears the name of the appellant company. Thus, the plea of the respondent/complainant that the appellants/OPs have used the complainant as their advertisement agent without his free will, is not tenable and the same is hereby rejected. So far as the observation of the District Commission that once a customer approaches any store/shops it was the duty of the store/shops to deliver the items by putting it in some carry bags, is FA No. 319 of 2024 9 concerned, the appellants/OP has duly submitted that it provides shopping carts/trolley to all its customers to carry their goods till their car/car parking, if so sought by them. Hence, the said observation of the District Commission is not justified in the present case. In view of the facts elaborated by the appellant/OP by leading cogent evidence to prove its version, we have no hesitation to hold that the respondent/complainant has not been compelled by the appellant/OP to purchase the said carry bag, rather he himself purchased the same for his own convenience by paying the price of the said carry bag with his own free will. As such, we do not find any unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants/OPs for the act of charging for multipurpose paper bag in this case and the impugned order passed by the District Commission is therefore liable to be set aside. It is also relevant to mention that the District Commission has further directed to the appellant/OP, "to provide free carry bag to all the customers with or without advertisement on it who purchases articles with further direction to stop unfair trade practice i.e. to charge for the carry bag". This according to us is beyond the pleadings and relief sought by the complainant, which is not tenable. The complainant had nowhere pleaded for such a relief but the District Commission has given such a direction for distribution of such freebies, without any statutory obligations, which is economically unviable and unjust. The appellant has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Indira Srivastava and Ors.", reported as (2008)2 SCC 763, wherein it has been observed FA No. 319 of 2024 10 that compensation cannot be awarded as a bonanza or as a source of profit and has to be assessed taking into consideration what would be just and equitable, on the basis of all facts and circumstances.
13. Sequel to our above discussion, we allow the appeal of the appellant and the impugned order of the District Commission is hereby set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by the respondent /complainant before the District Commission stands dismissed.
14. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.5,007/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount alongwith interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellants/OPs by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(H.P.S. MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER July 11,2025 (Dv)