Unpacking Shopping Bag Charges: Recent Bangalore Consumer Court Ruling

This is an important update to the August 2023 blog post, "Shopping Bag Charges from a Legal Perspective," where I delved into the dynamics between consumer rights, trademark laws, and retail practices. In that piece, I discussed how the common practice of charging for branded bags as an extension of a brand's identity was considered legitimate by large retail chains.

Fast forward to now, and a significant development following a recent ruling by the Bangalore Consumer Court. This ruling challenges the legitimacy of charging customers for what has been considered a promotional item – a shopping bag printed with a brand's logo.

In this case, a Bengaluru resident took furniture giant Ikea to court for charging ₹20 for a carry bag with the company logo. She visited the store in October 2022, where she purchased items worth ₹2,428. However, she was charged an additional ₹20 for a carry bag.

Upon questioning the staff about this charge, she expressed her concern and requested that the carry bag be provided for free to customers. Despite her objections, the employees insisted that it was their policy, and she ended up paying the amount.

Later, 11 days after the purchase, she demanded a refund and sent a legal notice to Ikea, arguing that mandating a carry bag with the company logo for all customers amounted to "advertising," which she considered "spurious" and an "unfair trade practice." The court ruled in her favour, stating that Ikea was guilty of unfair trade practice, emphasizing that the seller is responsible for covering all expenses related to delivering goods to the customer.

In simple terms, the court found Ikea at fault for making customers pay for a carry bag with the company logo, considering it an unfair trade practice. The judgment reinforces that sellers should cover the expenses associated with providing goods to customers. As a result, the Consumer Court granted relief of ₹3,020 to her.

In conclusion, this judgement against Ikea sheds light on the importance of consumer rights and fair trade practices. The court's ruling underscores that businesses, even global giants, are obligated to bear the expenses related to delivering goods to customers. This decision reaffirms the principle that consumers should not be unfairly burdened with additional charges for essential items like carry bags.

As I unpack the implications of this recent judgment, I explore how routine transactions are continually reshaped by the evolving landscape of the law.

[Sangeeta Bohra vs. Ikea India Private Limited CC No. 73/2023 dated 4th October 2023 (Bangalore Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)]

Shopping Bag Charges from a Legal Perspective

 🚨 Update Alert! 🚨

Read the latest addendum to 'Shopping Bag Charges from Legal Perspective' for a game-changing insight from the recent Bangalore Consumer Court judgment. 🛍️✨ #LegalUpdate

My recent visit to the IKEA store taught me that every action of ours has a section in law. As I made my way to the checkout counter, I was presented with a unique scenario – the option to purchase a shopping bag featuring the store's logo for a nominal cost. This seemingly mundane transaction triggered a cascade of inter-connected questions ranging from environmental awareness, and consumer rights to marketing tactics in my legal-oriented mind.

Why would a store charge customers for a bag that essentially served as a walking advertisement for their brand? It was a question that sparked a conversation with the store manager, who graciously explained their perspective.

"The shopping bags, with our trademarked logo, are considered an extension of our brand's identity," the manager informed me. "As such, they are treated as goods of the store and are subject to a nominal charge."

A pivotal query arises: Are the shopping bags offered by retail stores considered goods? In a case involving Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok, F.A. No.238/2019, the National Consumer Disputes Forum declared that shopping bags indeed qualify as 'goods.' They ruled that stores can charge for these bags, provided they clearly inform customers via visible notices in their store. This acknowledgement transforms shopping bags into commodities that brands can treat like any other product, as ruled in Gaurav Bangia v. Decathlon Sports India Private Limited, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon, CC No 747 of 2019, where a biodegradable shopping bag with a logo was sold by the store and the Consumer Forum emphasized that customers deserve to know about charges before they commit to purchasing. Lack of such disclosure constitutes unfair practice. If consumers are informed and still make their purchases, branding and charging for bags cease to be unfair practices.

With the push for eco-friendly practices due to plastic bans, brands invest in eco-friendly bag alternatives. This is a resource-intensive process that takes time and funds. In this context, eco-friendly bags become commodities subject to charges, not undue profiteering.

In the dance between trademark rights and consumer rights, shopping bags turn out to be more important than we think. They're not just bags – they're also part of legal discussions, what customers expect, and how brands show who they are. This shows us that even small things are connected to the law in big ways. 

Taking Control of Your Final Chapter

I first learned about living wills when a newspaper article “Renowned gynaecologist registers living will” caught my attention. Then of course, at one of the OTT platforms I saw the movie “Salam Venky” based on the true story of a 25-year-old chess player Kolavennu Venkatesh from Hyderabad who in 2004 pleaded to be euthanised.

Almost after 14 years, in March 2018, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark judgement recognizing the right to die with dignity and allowing for passive euthanasia in certain circumstances. The judgement, passed by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, held that "the right to life includes the right to die with dignity" and that individuals have the right to refuse medical treatment or life support in cases of terminal illness or irreversible coma.

The case was brought to the Supreme Court by a non-governmental organization called Common Cause, which argued that the right to die with dignity was a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. The Court agreed, stating that "a dying patient who is terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state can make an informed decision to refuse or withdraw medical treatment or artificial life support." The Court also laid down guidelines for the procedure to be followed in cases of passive euthanasia, including the requirement for a medical board to assess the patient's condition and the need for judicial oversight to prevent abuse.

The legal recognition of living wills is relatively new, but it has already had a significant impact on the way that individuals think about end-of-life care.  A living will is a legal document that allows individuals to express their wishes regarding medical treatment if they become incapacitated and cannot communicate their preferences. In India, living wills are also known as "advance directives" and are recognized under the law.

One of the key benefits of having a living will is that it allows individuals to retain control over their medical treatment even if they are unable to communicate their preferences at the time. As Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, explains: "The right to die with dignity is a fundamental right, and living wills are an important step towards ensuring that individuals have the autonomy to make decisions about their medical treatment."

 At first, I was hesitant about the idea of making a living will. It seemed like a morbid topic to think about, and I didn't want to imagine myself in a situation where I would need one. But as I thought about it more, I realized that having a living will be empowering. In a living will I can specify the medical treatments that I’d like to receive or refuse, in case of terminal illness or a persistent vegetative state. This can include decisions about life support, resuscitation, and other forms of medical intervention.

Making a living will was a simple process, but it gave me a sense of peace and control over my own life. It's a small step that we can all take to ensure that our preferences for medical treatment are respected and to avoid any potential conflicts or confusion among family members and healthcare providers. Your voice matters, and living will help ensure that your wishes are heard, even when you can't speak for yourself.

In conclusion, the judgement in Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India and Another, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2005, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 208, paved the way for the legal recognition of living wills in India as a valid means that empowers individuals to make informed decisions about their medical treatment and retain control over their own lives.

Navigating Passport Renewal with a Pending Criminal Case

Title credits: HI (Human Intelligence) + AI (Artificial Intelligence #ChatGPT)

A pending criminal case can be a daunting obstacle in the passport renewal process, but it doesn't have to put your travel plans on hold. 

"The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page." - Saint Augustine

In India, the Passport Act of 1967 gives the government the authority to deny, impound or revoke a passport if it is in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interests of the general public. It has been seen that in certain cases, the government has denied renewal or issuance of passports to individuals having pending criminal cases.

A Bombay High Court judgement in the case of Nijal Navin Shah vs. State of Maharastra (Criminal Application No. 1193 of 2022) has clarified that an individual with pending criminal cases can renew their passport, subject to checks and scrutiny for eligibility required under the provisions of Passport Act.

Considering the present case of the applicant Nijal Shah has a pending criminal case under Section 406 (criminal breach of trust), Section 420 (cheating & dishonesty), and Section 120(b) read with 34 (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against him. He needed to renew his passport but the application was rejected basis the investigation is pending; one of the accused is absconding and there are chances of tampering with evidence.

But with this court ruling, Nijal will be able to renew his passport as he abided by all the conditions laid down by the Session judge at the time of pre-arrest bail and travelled to the USA during the investigation. He has an immoveable property in Mumbai and his son is working in Melbourne, Australia. There is no material on record to show that the applicant carries flight risk. This ruling protects the applicant’s constitutional right to travel (freedom of movement).

In short, the recent court judgement in India has opened the door for individuals with pending criminal cases to renew their passports and explore the world. It is recommended to consult an advocate for guidance and be prepared with the required documents to support the application.

Nominee or Legal Heir: Who Gets The Cooperative Housing Society Flat?

Death is certain and so are the testamentary formalities after death. The Bombay High Court spelled out the legal provisions of a nominee and a legal heir in the matter between the sole nominee/legal heir who claimed a 100% ownership share in a flat in Mumbai and the other two legal heirs of the deceased.

A very interesting case where the deceased (for simplicity's sake let’s name him “MK”) was the owner of a flat in a cooperative housing society in Mumbai. During his lifetime, MK had registered a nomination in his grandson's name (“VK”). The entry of nomination was recorded in the society register. The owner MK died intestate (without a will) leaving behind his two sons (“RK and KK”) and grandson VK whose father was the predeceased son of owner MK. 

The son RK took a no objection cum declaration from his brother KK after their father MK’s demise, and in this way, he claimed a 2/3rd share and interest in the flat and sought transfer of a proportionate interest in the flat and claimed of the housing society. His application was rejected by the society based on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in the case of Indrani Wahi Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Civil Appeal 4930/2006) held that the Cooperative Society is bound by a valid nomination; however, it does not mean that nominee becomes the property owner, but that he holds the property in trust for the legal heirs.

 

Now, let’s look at the provisions of the applicable law- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Amendment )Act, 2019 (MCS Amendment Act) duly considered by the Bombay High Court in the case at hand, Karan Vishnu Khandelwal v. Honourable Chairman/Secretary Vaikunth (Andheri) Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors (Writ Petition No. 12468 of 2022 dated 10 November 2022). Section 154-13 of Chapter XXIII-B which came into effect on 9th March 2019 is plain and easy and as such needs no interpretation.

The Court directed the Society to transfer the flat to the grandson VK in his capacity as nominee and admit him as a provisional member till the time RK was able to obtain a succession certificate or legal heirship certificate or testamentary document, as the case may be. A nominee is a trustee who cannot acquire ownership rights in a cooperative housing society flat by nomination.