Charged Rs 10 extra for beer bottle, consumer wins Rs 25,000 compensation from court

Charged Rs 10 extra

• The complaint was filed by a consumer who purchased a 650 ml bottle of beer from KSBC located in Pathanamthitta and paid Rs 180 but the MRP on the bottle of beer was Rs 170.
• According to the complainant, when he pointed out the discrepancy, the staff insisted that the amount shown in the bill had to be paid and allegedly behaved rudely. He alleged that he was overcharged by Rs 10 and was told to file a complaint if he had any objections.
• Therefore, the complainant approached the commission requesting the commission to take action against the unfair trade method and sought an appropriate amount of compensation.
• KSBC, in its defence, admitted that the bottle had been sold for Rs 180 despite carrying an MRP of Rs 170.
• It contended that the increase was due to the levy of social security cess introduced by the Kerala government and subsequent revisions in liquor prices.
• The corporation argued that it was impractical to re-label crores of liquor bottles already lying in warehouses, retail outlets and the supply chain whenever prices were revised.
• It further relied on provisions of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and government orders permitting sale of old stock at revised prices.
• The corporation also claimed that notices regarding the revised prices had been displayed at the outlet and alleged that the complainant had disrupted sales and abused staff members. It therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

‘Unfair trade practice’

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.