SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Reject a Plaint While Exercising Jurisdiction under Article 227  ||  SC: Merely Leasing an Apartment Does Not Bar a Flat Buyer’s Consumer Complaint Against the Builder  ||  Delhi HC: Unproven Adultery Allegations Cannot be Used to Deny Interim Maintenance under the DV Act  ||  Bombay HC: Storing Items in a Fridge isn’t Manufacturing and Doesn’t Make Premises a Factory  ||  Kerala HC: Disability Pension is Not Payable if the Condition is Unrelated to Military Service  ||  Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC    

Consumer Forum, Hyderabad: Supermarket Charging Cost for Carry Bags an 'Unfair Trade Practice' - (22 Feb 2021)

CONSUMER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad has directed 'More Megastore' to discontinue its unfair trade practice of arbitrarily imposing additional cost of carry bags (bearing its logo) on the consumer at the time of making payment. The Commission has held that using the Consumer as an advertisement agent at his cost tantamount to unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Tags : DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   CARRY BAGS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved