4 min readNew DelhiJun 11, 2026 07:00 PM IST
First published on: Jun 11, 2026 at 07:00 PM IST
A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Andhra Pradesh Prakasam district has directed a retailer to refund an excess amount of Rs 82 charged to a customer and pay compensation and litigation costs amounting to Rs 7,000 after finding that the retailer sold 100 grams of almonds above its maximum retail price (MRP).
A bench of president D Sreedevi, and members Y Sundara Rao and Dr SA Sameera noted that the allegations against the retailer were proved by the unchallenged evidence of the complainant.
“The sale of goods more than MRP shows the unfair trade practice followed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and they are definitely liable to repay the excess amount with interest and compensation, to the complainant,” the commission noted in its order dated May 30.
Charged Rs 82 in excess
- The complaint alleged that the complainant had purchased several grocery items from More Retail Private Limited on February 7, 2025, and was charged Rs 272 for a 100-gram pouch of “More Choice Almond Mamra” despite the product carrying an MRP of Rs 190.
- According to the complaint, the retailer collected Rs 82 in excess of the printed MRP.
- After issuing a legal notice to the company, the consumer approached the District Consumer Commission alleging a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
- In its defence, More Retail contended that the complainant had purchased seven items worth Rs 1,564 and had received discounts totalling Rs 440, along with loyalty points, reducing the final payable amount to Rs 1,124.
- It was argued that it had not charged the consumer more than the billed amount and sought dismissal of the complaint.
- It was further stated that the complainant had filed the plea to harass the opposite parties with the intention of gaining wrongful money.
‘Negligence and carelessness’
The commission noted that in its reply to the consumer’s legal notice, the retailer had admitted that there was an error in scanning the product price and stated that the mistake was neither wilful nor intentional.
The commission observed that the retailer did not subsequently deny this admission in its written statement.
“The silence of the said statement version, of reply notice in the written amounts to admission of said statement in the reply and allegations of the complainant,” the commission remarked.
The commission held that the negligence and carelessness meted out by the opposite parties are deemed to be a deficiency of service on their part.
“Complainant produced documents which are very supportive to prove his case. Hence, the Commission finds that there is an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant,” the bench noted.
Allowing the complaint in part, the commission directed More Retail and its managing director, jointly and severally, to refund Rs 82 with 12 per cent annual interest from the date of purchase until payment.
It also awarded Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental agony, physical hardship and suffering caused by the unfair trade practice, along with Rs 2,000 towards litigation costs.
Consumer awarded Rs 25,000 after being charged Rs 10 extra for beer
A Kerala consumer commission has directed the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (KSBC) to pay Rs 25,000 in compensation and costs to a customer after finding that it charged Rs 10 more than the 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.
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.