Overcharged Beer Bottle Rs 10 Consumer Walks With Rs 25000

Maximum Retail Price (MRP) printed on a beer bottle.

The order passed by a bench comprising president George Baby and member Nishad Thankappan noted that charging excess MRP constitutes ‘unfair trade practice‘ and ‘deficiency in service’.

“Charging excess of MRP by opposite party constitutes “unfair trade practice” and “deficiency in service” as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in our considered view adequate compensation should be levied on the opposite party to change this trend,” the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta noted in its order dated June 3.

The commission observed that Rule 18(2) of the Rules expressly prohibits retailers from selling any pre-packaged commodity at a price exceeding the retail sale price printed on the package.

It held that the MRP printed on the bottle constituted the statutory ceiling price and that charging Rs 180 for a bottle displaying an MRP of Rs 170 amounted to a direct violation of the law.

“This is a direct contravention of Rule 18(2).The law creates a strict liability. The moment you see MRP Rs.170/- on the bottle but the bill says Rs.180/-, an offense is made out,” the commission said.

It further observed that consumers cannot be expected to know about internal government orders or administrative arrangements and are entitled to rely on the MRP displayed on the package at the time of purchase.

“A consumer cannot be expected to know internal government orders. As a consumer, the complainant has the right to rely on the information disclosed on the package under the Legal Metrology Act. A consumer cannot be burdened with checking internal government files. The printed MRP on the bottle is the contract price between the complainant and the seller,” the commission observed.

It remarked that the illegal act of overcharging caused the complainant severe mental agony, inconvenience, and forced the complainant to run from pillar to post to assert his basic consumer rights.

Holding that the excess charge constituted both “deficiency in service” and an “unfair trade practice” under the Consumer Protection Act, the commission said that adequate compensation was necessary to discourage such practices.

Allowing the complaint, the commission directed KSBC to refund the excess amount of Rs 10 with 9% annual interest from the date of filing of the complaint.

It also ordered the KSBC to pay Rs 15,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 towards costs within 30 days.

Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience. Expertise Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents. Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes: Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity. Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes: Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law. Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates. Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More