1. Sale of product above MRP — Unfair trade practice — Consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. (Para 4 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 20448
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V. P. Patel, President, A. C. Raval, Member, P. R. Shah, Member
Reliance Retail Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shailendrakumar Narsinhbhai Solanki – Respondent
First Appeal No.858/22
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nimit Shukla
For the Respondents: Reema J Patel
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nimit Shukla
For the Respondents: Reema J Patel
Charging a price exceeding the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) constitutes an "unfair trade practice" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and violates the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, rendering the retailer liable regardless of computer system errors.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2(47), Section 39(1)(d) and Section 39(1)(k) - Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 - Rule 18(2) - Charging more than Maximum Retail Price (MRP) - Whether charging Rs. 5/- over MRP constitutes unfair trade practice - Act of charging above MRP falls within the purview of deceptive practice under Section 2(47) - Retailer cannot shift liability to manufacturer or cite computer system errors as a defense against unfair trade practice (Paras 9, 14, 16).
(B) Compensation and Punitive Damages - Section 39(1)(k) - Power to grant punitive damages when loss or injury is suffered by a large number of unidentifiable consumers - Penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- upheld as a deterrent and to protect the interests of a large number of consumers who may have been similarly affected (Paras 12, 13, 18).
Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased a Lakme sunscreen product with an MRP of Rs. 270/- but was charged Rs. 275/- by the appellant. Despite pointing this out to the staff, the appellant insisted on the payment of the higher price based on the computer system. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint, ordering a refund of the excess amount, compensation for mental agony, litigation costs, and a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Findings of Court:
The act of charging more than the MRP is a direct violation of Rule 18(2) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011, and constitutes an "unfair trade practice" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Issues: Whether charging a price exceeding the MRP constitutes an unfair trade practice and whether the imposition of a substantial penalty is justified against a large retailer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the contract of sale exists between the consumer and the retailer; therefore, the retailer is liable for overcharging regardless of the manufacturer's pricing in the system. Charging above MRP is a deceptive practice, and punitive damages under Section 39(1)(k) are warranted to deter such practices and provide relief for a class of unidentifiable consumers.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- consumer law
- practice and procedure
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Retailer denied liability, citing computer system error, non-joinder of manufacturer, and absence of class action. (Para 6 )
3. Charging above MRP falls under Section 2(47) of Act and violates Legal Metrology Rules, constituting unfair trade practice. (Para 9 , 10 , 18 )
4. A retailer charging more than MRP is an unfair trade practice; penalty may be imposed under Section 39(1)(d) and (k). (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 18 )
5. Appeal dismissed — District Commission order confirmed, upholding compensation and punitive damages for unfair trade practice. (Para 19 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
6. Does charging a price above the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) constitute an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act?
Yes, charging above MRP is an unfair method or deceptive practice under Section 2(47) read with Section 2(47)(i) and 2(47)(vii) of the Act. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. Can a retailer be penalized for charging above MRP even if the higher price was due to a computer system error?
Yes, the retailer is liable as the contract is with the consumer; the error does not absolve liability for the unfair trade practice. (Para 14 , 16 )
8. Can punitive damages be awarded in a complaint by an individual consumer for a small overcharge?
Yes, under Section 39(1)(k), if a large number of unidentifiable consumers may have suffered loss, the court can impose punitive damages. (Para 12 , 13 )
9. Is it necessary for the complainant to prove that many consumers were affected to establish an unfair trade practice?
No, the individual overcharge itself constitutes an unfair trade practice; the large consumer impact is relevant only for awarding punitive damages. (Para 12 )
10. What is the significance of a consumer coming to court for a small wrongful charge?
It is appreciated as a service to protect the interests of a large number of consumers, and penalties serve as a deterrent. (Para 18 )
Order by Ms. P. R. Shah, Member
1. The appellant has filed the appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 02.11.2022 of the Ld. District Commission, Bharuch in complaint no. 5/2022.
2. Heard Ld. Adv. Mr. Nimit Shukla for the appellant and Ms. Reema J Patel for the complainant.
Order under challenge
3. The Ld. District Commission has partly allowed the complaint and has ordered and directed the opponents no.1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay Rs.5/- charged more than MRP with 7% interest from the date of complaint.
3.1 The Ld. District Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- because of unfair trade practice adopted by the opponents and has directed and ordered the opponents 1 and 3 to jointly and severally pay this amount within 30 days of the order in the Consumer Welfare Fund.
3.2 The Ld. District Commission has also directed and ordered that the opponents should take care that they do not adopt such unfair trade practice in future.
3.3 The Ld. District Commission has further directed and ordered the opponents 1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost.
Facts of the case
4. The complainant on 31/10/2021 bought a lakme sun screen product for Rs.275/- from the opponent no.1. However it was found by the complainant that the lakme sun screen had a MRP of Rs.270/- yet the complainant was charged Rs.275/- for the same. The complainant brought this to the notice of the staff of opponent no.1, but was informed that the price in the computer system is Rs.275/-. The sales manager also informed the billing staff that the MRP of the product is Rs.270/- only. However billing staff did not give any satisfactory response and insisted that the complainant has to pay Rs275/- for the product. Complainant therefore filed a complaint before the Ld. District Commission alleging unfair trade practice and violation of the MRP rules and prayed that strict action should be taken against the opponent. Complainant along with his complaint has submitted the opponent's bill, payment receipt, Xerox copy of the lakme sun screen bottle showing the MRP and reply given to the legal notice by the opponent.
Arguments of the appellant
5. Appellant vide page 16 has submitted the list of documents: copy of the application/complaint filed by complainant dated 11.01.2022,copy of the list of documents produced by complainant on 11.02.2022, copy of the reply filed by the appellant-original respondent on 02.09.2022, copy of the additional list of documents produced by the respondent on 02.11.2022, copy of the counter affidavit filed by respondent on 02.11.2022 against the reply filed by appellant on 02.11.2022 against the reply filed appellant-original respondent on 02.09.2022.
5.1 The appellant submits that the appellant is only a retailer of the product and is liable to be penalized for the act and/or omission conducted by third party.
5.2 The Ld. Adv. for the appellant has referred to WS from page 40 to 43 and pointed to para 5 wherein the appellant denies that on 30/10/2021, there was a lakme sun screen product sold to the complainant as alleged by the complainant and avers that the complainant has failed to produce the proof of payment receipt of Rs.4,420/- dated 30/10/2021. Further it is the case of the appellant that the alleged Rs.5/- charged more than MRP would be as per the computer system generated bill and the appellant has no authorization to make any changes without the authorization from the manufacturer/producer and therefore there is a non-joinder of parties as the complainant has not joined as party the lakme Company or it's sales manager.
5.3 It is averred by the appellant that the offer to return Rs.5/- due to the mistake in the automatic system was made to the complainant but the complainant chose to buy the product at an elevated price and thereafter filed the present complaint. It is the c
