The central legal point established in the judgment is that overcharging for packaged drinking water, in violation of the Legal Metrology Act and Rules, constitutes an unfair trade practice.

ORDER :

1. This appeal is filed by the OP in CC. No. 88/11 and is directed against order dated 28.1.2013 of the learned North Goa District Forum at Porvorim by which the complaint filed, is partly allowed.

2. The parties to this appeal are being referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint. We have heard Mr. D. Naik, the learned Advocate of the OP and perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the OP, by the complainant and the decisions cited by both the parties.

3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he was overcharged, Rs. 20 as against MRP of Rs. 14 for a bottle of packaged drinking water, on 22.5.2011.

4. The case of OP, in brief, is that the complainant was charged for the consumption of water and service provided in their restaurant at Panaji-Goa. That is, in sum and substance, the dispute between the parties.

5. The complainant had filed his own affidavit in evidence and produced the purchase receipt dated 22.5.2011 for Rs. 20. The OP had filed the affidavit in evidence of their partner, one Carlos Tavora.

6. Rule 18(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, in force from 1.3.2011, framed under Legal Metrology Act, 2009 would show that:

“No retail dealer or other person including manufacturer, packer, importer and wholesale dealer shall make any sale of any commodity in packed form at a price exceeding the retail sale price thereof.”

7. The learned District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant had not entered the restaurant of the OP to consume food items but only to purchase the bottle of water. The MRP printed on the packaged water bottle is by way of offering protection to the interest of the consumers to know the appropriate price of the product. The restaurant cannot charge the consumer more than what is printed on the product. In this case the consumer has not consumed any other food item to charge more as service charges. The bill produced by the complainant did not mention of any service charged separately. It only mentioned a bottle of ‘Aquafina’. The item was directly purchased from the counter and restaurant cannot charge for the service charges since he did not sit at the table and enjoyed the facilities given by the restaurant and this proves that the restaurant had charged the complainant more than MRP which was an illegal act of the OP and was nothing but an incident of exploitation of consumers.

7.1. The learned District Forum also observed that reference to packaged drinking water as mineral water was a malpractice adopted by the OP to mislead the public. As far as this observation of the learned District Forum is concerned, it may be noted that the purchase receipt shows that complainant was sold one bottle of mineral water. The complainant did not state what he had demanded to purchase from the OP whether he had demanded to purchase “mineral water” or “packaged drinking water” or “bottled water”, as the last expression is commonly called. Moreover, “bottled water” or “packaged drinking water” is colloquially referred to as “mineral water” though “mineral water” as such is not ordinarily sold by anyone in this part of the country. Therefore, in our view, there was no malpractice on that score on the part of the OP.

8. Mr. D. Naik, the learned Advocate of the OP would submit that the OP was neither a wholesaler nor a retailer but a restaurant serving various items including “bottled water” and as such, the Rules of 2011 are not applicable to them. According to him, as soon as the customer enters the restaurant a menu card is placed before him and the customer then places an order and the customer is charged for services rendered.

9. We are not at all impressed with the submissions of the learned Advocate Mr. D. Naik. To us it appears that the case at hand is a case of sale simpliciter of packaged drinking/bottled water for Rs. 20 as against MRP of Rs. 14. The purchase receipt produced by the complainant does not show that the compl