Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

          Counsel for the appellant in all the appeals, contended with vehemence that the amount towards the carry bags was rightly charged from the respondents, keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, which says that no carry bags shall be provided free of costs by retailers to the consumers. He further submitted that the appellant has stopped using plastic carry bags for the sake of saving the environment; that the appellant is now purchasing paper bags and its cost is being passed over to the customers; and that the respondents themselves chose to purchase the said carry bags from the appellant. He further submitted that the impugned orders passed by the District Commissions allowing the consumer complaints are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be set aside and that the complaints deserve dismissal.

At the time of arguments, when confronted with the above situation, Counsel for the appellant with a view to buttress her cases, placed heavy reliance on provisions of Rule 10 of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, to contend that the appellant was not bound to provide carry bags, free of cost, to the respondents. Relevant part of the said Rule is reproduced hereunder:-
"10 Explicit pricing of carry bags. - No carry bags shall be made available free of cost by retailers to consumers. The concerned municipal authority may by notification determine the minimum price for carry bags depending upon their quality and size which covers their material and waste management costs in order to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation."
"carry bags" means bags made from any plastic material, used for the purpose of carrying or dispensing commodities but do not include bags that constitute or form an integral part of the packaging in which goods are sealed prior to use;]"

                   When we read the said Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, as a whole, it reveals that the said Rules have been framed with a view to enforce the provisions relating to the use, collection, segregation, transportation and disposal of plastic waste and also the conditions to be fulfilled during the course of manufacture, stocking, distribution, sale and use of carry bags and sachets, in order to save the environment. Thus, Rule 10 relates to explicit pricing of carry bags, made from any plastic material, used for the purpose of carrying or dispensing commodities, to encourage their re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation, to save the environment. Whereas, in the present cases, as stated above, the appellant failed to deliver the goods in the complete state of delivery and on the other hand, charged for the carry bags made of jute, which was required to put the goods i.e. macroni pep, dettol, oreo; cop urad etc., in order to bring it in the complete deliverable state, so that its physical possession could be handed over to the respondents; thereby violating the provisions of Sub Section (5) of Section 36 of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, referred to above, which says that  all the expenses with regard to packing etc. shall be borne by the vendor in order to put the goods into a deliverable state. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the appellant from the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules 2011.