Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 21201
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
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nimit Shukla
For the Respondents: Reema J Patel
Charging any amount above the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) is an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and a violation of Legal Metrology Rules, making the retailer liable regardless of billing errors or manufacturer pricing.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2(47) and Section 39 - Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 - Rule 18(2) - Charging price above Maximum Retail Price (MRP) - Unfair trade practice - Retailer argued that the price was captured by the computer system and the manufacturer should be responsible - Such contention is not sustainable as the contract of sale is between the consumer and the retailer - Charging even a small amount over the MRP constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice, misleading the public concerning the price at which a product is ordinarily sold (Paras 9, 9.1, 14).
(B) Punitive Damages - Section 39(1)(k) - Where a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently suffer loss due to unfair trade practice, the Commission is empowered to grant punitive damages to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund - A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- is justified to act as a deterrent and send a message to all traders to desist from such practices (Paras 12, 13, 18).
Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased a sunscreen product from the appellant for Rs. 275/-, whereas the MRP printed on the product was Rs. 270/-. Despite bringing the discrepancy to the attention of the sales staff and manager, the appellant insisted on the higher price. The complainant filed a complaint alleging unfair trade practice. The District Commission, Bharuch, partly allowed the complaint, directing the appellant to refund the excess amount, pay compensation for mental agony and litigation costs, and deposit a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- into the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant's act of charging more than the MRP is a clear violation of Rule 18(2) of the Packaged Commodities Rules 2011 and squarely falls within the definition of an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Issues: Whether charging an amount exceeding the MRP constitutes an unfair trade practice and whether the imposition of a significant punitive penalty on the retailer is justified given the nature of the business.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that any sale above the MRP is an unfair trade practice. The retailer cannot shift liability to the manufacturer or excuse the overcharge as a computer error. Because the retailer operates a large-scale business, it is presumed that many unidentifiable consumers could be affected, thereby justifying punitive damages under Section 39(1)(k) of the Act.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
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
