1. Appeal against District Commission order — charging more than MRP — unfair trade practice under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 20546
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, regardless of whether the error was due to a computer system.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2(47), Section 39(1) and Section 41 - Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 - Rule 18(2) - Charging more than Maximum Retail Price (MRP) - Act of charging a price exceeding the MRP constitutes an "unfair trade practice" under Section 2(47) of the Act and is a violation of Rule 18(2) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011 (Paras 9.1 and 10.3).
(B) Punitive Damages - Power of the Commission under Section 39(1)(d) and 39(1)(k) to grant punitive damages to deter unfair trade practices, especially when such practices likely affect a large number of unidentifiable consumers (Paras 12 and 13).
(C) Retailer's Liability - A retailer cannot escape liability for charging above MRP by blaming the manufacturer or computer system errors, as the contract of sale is between the consumer and the retailer (Para 14).
Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased a sun screen product with an MRP of Rs. 270/- but was charged Rs. 275/- by the appellant. Despite bringing this to the attention of the staff, the appellant insisted on the higher price citing computer system records. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint, ordering a refund of Rs. 5/-, Rs. 3,000/- for mental agony, Rs. 3,000/- as litigation costs, and a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Findings of Court:
The commission found that the act of charging more than MRP is a deceptive practice falling under the definition of unfair trade practice. The appellant's contention regarding computer-generated bills and lack of authorization to change prices was rejected as no agreement between the retailer and manufacturer was produced.
Issues: Whether the act of charging more than the MRP by a retailer constitutes an unfair trade practice and whether the penalty imposed by the District Commission was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: Charging above the MRP is a clear violation of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and constitutes an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Punitive damages are appropriate to act as a deterrent and protect the interests of the general public who may be similarly defrauded.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued only retailer, no authorization to change system price, non-joinder of manufacturer, and penalty excessive without quantification. (Para 5 )
3. Charging more than MRP violates Section 2(47) of CP Act 2019 and Rule 18(2) of Legal Metrology Rules, 2011 — unfair trade practice. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. Charging above MRP constitutes unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) CP Act; Commission can impose punitive damages under Section 39(1)(d) read with Section 39(1)(k). (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 )
5. Appeal dismissed — order of District Commission confirming penalty for charging more than MRP upheld. (Para 19 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
6. Does charging more than the MRP on a packaged commodity amount to an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
Yes, charging more than MRP is a deceptive practice and falls under Section 2(47), specifically clauses (i) and (vii), amounting to an unfair trade practice. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. Can the District Commission impose punitive damages and order amounts to be deposited in a Consumer Welfare Fund even if the specific complainant suffered only a small loss?
Yes, under Section 39(1)(d) read with Section 39(1)(k) of the CP Act, 2019, the Commission can impose punitive damages and order payment into a Consumer Welfare Fund if a large number of unidentifiable consumers may have suffered loss. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
8. Is a retailer liable for charging more than MRP even if the higher price was generated by the manufacturer's computer system?
Yes, the retailer is liable as the contract is with the consumer and the retailer cannot shift responsibility to the manufacturer without producing any agreement to that effect. (Para 14 )
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/- and 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 t
