##PAGE1##

Date of Filing: 10.03.2026. Date of Order: 28.08.2026.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAKINADA. P r e s e n t:

Sri. Ch. Raghupathy Vasantha Kumar, B.Com., B.L., … President.

Smt. Chakka Susi, B.Com., M.A., B.Ed., LL.B., … Member.

Sri. Chaganti Nageswara Rao, B.Sc., LL.M., … Member.

FRIDAY, the 28^th day of August, 2026.

C.C. No. 22/2026.

Between D. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Mani Kumar, Hindu, aged about 30 years, 3-1-71/a, Mangayammaraopeta, Pithapuram, Kakinada District, Mobile Ph. No. 9381244348. … Complainant.

And

1. The Executive Officer, Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamyvari Devasthanam, Annavaram, Sankhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District.

2. M/s. Satya Deva Fancy, Coconuts & Cool Drinks, Represented by the authorized signatory, Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamyvari Devasthanam, Annavaram, Sankhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District. … Opposite parties. This case is coming on 16.06.2026 for hearing before this Commission in the presence of the complainant in person, Sri. G.V. Krishna Prakash for the 1^st opposite party and Sri. N.V. Ravi Krishna, Advocate for the 2^nd opposite party having stood over to this date for consideration, this Commission pronounced the following.

ORDER

(By Sri. Ch. Raghupathy Vasantha Kumar, President on behalf of Bench)

1. a. The complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for a direction to the opposite parties to refund of the excess amount of Rs.7/-. Compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- payable to the temple for deficiency in service. Directions to display rate boards and initiate action against erring licensees. Costs of Rs. 10,000/- and other consequential reliefs etc. etc.

b. The complainant pleaded that he is a devotee of Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Annavaram. On 22.02.2026 he visited the temple and purchased one litre of mineral water from the 2^nd opposite party, the licensee of a shop situated on the temple hill. Though the Maximum Retail Price printed on the bottle was Rs.18/-, the 2^nd opposite party demanded and collected Rs.25/- through UPI payment. When questioned, the 2^nd opposite party claimed that he was authorised to sell above the MRP. The complainant alleged that the Executive Officer of the temple failed to regulate the licensee and thereby permitted unfair trade practices. Despite a complaint through WhatsApp, no action was taken.

c. It is contended that charging above the printed MRP amounts to an unfair trade practice, restrictive trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

2. a. The 1^st opposite party/Executive Officer denied all allegations. It is contended that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the Executive Officer since no goods or services were purchased from the temple administration and that the complainant purchased the water bottle from the independent licensee alone.

b. It is further pleaded that the Executive Officer is only the administrative head under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The shops are allotted through public auction under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Rights (Other than Agricultural Lands) Leases and Licences Rules, 2003. Whenever violations are noticed, action is taken against the licensees. Proceedings and notices issued against the 2^nd opposite party by the Endowments Department and Food Safety authorities were filed. It is therefore contended that there is neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against it.

c. The 1^st opposite party further pleaded that the Executive Officer has always taken prompt action whenever complaints are received against licensees conducting business in the temple premises. It is specifically contended that on receipt of complaints regarding charging of excess price by the 2^ndopposite par