Legal Reference Library

While dismissing a revision petition filed by a multiplex in Jaipur challenging the orders of District Forum and Rajasthan Consumer Commission, vide which the multiplex was directed to return the amount charged more than maximum retail price of packaged drinking water to the Complainant along with Rs 6,500 as compensation, NCDRC also imposed further costs of Rs five lakh upon the multiplex. Earlier, the complainant went to see a movie in Big Cinemas in Jaipur where he purchased a bottle of water for which he was charged Rs 30 whereas the MRP of the bottle was Rs 16. Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2016/02/22/costs-of-five-lakh-imposed-upon-big-cinemas-and-reliance-media-works-ltd-for-charging-more-than-mrp-of-packaged-drinking-water/

The apex consumer forum has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 1.56 lakh on a Gujarat-based hotel for charging customers Rs 5.5 above the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of a soft drink. The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) imposed the cost reiterating earlier judicial rulings barring hotels and eateries from charging above the MRP. The ruling came on a petition filed by a Bharuch-based hotel Nyay Mandir, which challenged the Gujarat State Commission's order to pay Rs 6,000 as compensation to complainant Ishwar Lal Jinabhai Desai, who had approached the forum for having been charged Rs 18 for beverage 'Miranda', despite its MRP being only Rs 12.50. Asking the hotel to pay Rs 6,000 to the complainant, the forum ordered the hotel to pay an additional Rs 1.50 lakh to the consumer welfare fund. The hotel opposed Desai's plea contending that it took the additional amount as service charges for various facilities accorded to its customers. Not impress...

If the symbol Rs/Rs is missing on the package of a product for sale, it could invite penalty under the Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011. The offence is compoundable, but the rules are valid, the Delhi High Court stated last week in its judgment, M/s IMS Mercantiles Ltd vs Union of India. In this case, the premises of the firm were inspected by a team of Legal Metrology officials and they found that one of the packets containing rechargeable LED flash lights did not bear the word 'Rs'. The MRP shown on the package merely showed 'MRP 299.00'. The firm was asked to pay Rs 25,000 for the lapse. It challenged the action in the high court and also argued that the rules were against the Legal Metrology Act. The high court dismissed the writ petition.

While dismissing the revision petition filed by Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. challenging the orders of District Forum and State Commission, which were passed in favour of the complainant, NCDRC imposed punitive costs in the sum of Rs one lakh on Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. for charging more amount than the maximum retail price (MRP) from the consumer. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Anagha Vilas Kulkarni, , decided on August 21, 2015