Cigarette manufacturer, retailer fined Rs 10 lakh for selling pack Rs 20 above MRP

Charged Rs 20 extra

• According to the complaint, the complainant had purchased a packet of Classic brand cigarettes from the seller in Aligarh on January 29, 2026.
• It was alleged that though the packet carried an MRP of Rs 340, the retailer charged Rs 360.
• The complainant paid the amount through an online transaction after protesting against the overcharge and later approached the consumer commission.
• He argued that the seller had charged the excess amount of Rs 20 to get an undue profit, which is against the law and is an unfair trade practice.
• He submitted that by overcharging, the seller had committed a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in the sale of cigarettes.
• The retailer failed to appear before the commission and the matter proceeded ex parte against him.
• The manufacturing company, in its written statement, denied liability, arguing that it had not sold the cigarettes directly to the complainant.
• It was further submitted that it did not recognise the retailer as its authorised vendor, and had no knowledge of the alleged overcharging.
• It denied indulging in any black marketing or unfair trade practice. It also questioned the complainant’s status as a consumer vis-à-vis the company.

Rs 10 lakh cost

The commission held that the evidence, including the online payment record and photographs of the cigarette pack, established that the complainant had purchased the cigarettes manufactured by the company and had been charged above the printed MRP.

The commission observed that selling a product above its MRP amounted to black marketing and an unfair trade practice.

It further held that the manufacturer was liable for the acts of the retailer, describing the latter as an agent or sub-agent engaged in selling the manufacturer’s products.

“So far as the relationship of op no 1 with op no 2 is concerned, op no 2 is the seller who had sold the Classic Brand Cigarette manufactured by op no 1. Thus a relationship of manufacturer and seller of the product is established between the op no 1 and 2 and by the conduct, the op no.2 is established as agent of the op no 1,” the order read.

The bench noted that charging consumers above the printed price was not only detrimental to the complainant but also affected members of the public at large who may have been overcharged but remained unidentified.

“Op no.2 has adopted unfair trade practice in selling the Classic Brand Cigarettes manufactured by op no.1 and op no.1 is liable for the acts committed by op no 2 whereby complainant had suffered loss and harassment and it is also the conduct of the op no.2 in selling the Classic Brand Cigarettes to the Public at large who had suffered loss and they are not identifiable,” the commission noted.

The commission directed the opposite parties to refund Rs 20 with 18 per cent interest from January 29, 2026, till the date of payment and pay Rs 5000 as compensation and litigation expenses amounting to Rs 5000.

Invoking Section 39(1)(k) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the commission directed the opposite parties to deposit Rs 10 lakh in the Consumer Welfare Fund in addition to compensating the complainant.

Why this judgment matters?

The decision sends a strong message that even small instances of overcharging can attract significant consequences under the Consumer Protection Act when they reflect an unfair trade practice affecting the wider public.

By invoking Section 39(1)(k) and directing a Rs 10 lakh deposit into the Consumer Welfare Fund, the commission emphasised that consumer forums can impose remedies aimed not just at compensating an individual complainant but also at protecting the interests of unidentified consumers who may have suffered similar harm.