Kakinada Consumer Commission Holds Temple Shop Licensee Liable For Selling Water Bottle Above MRP, Imposes ₹7 Lakh Punitive Damages
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kakinada, has directed a licensed shop operating within the premises of Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam, Annavaram, to deposit ₹7 lakh as punitive damages in the Consumer Welfare Fund after finding that it sold a packaged drinking water bottle above its printed Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The Bench comprising President Sri Ch. Raghupathy Vasantha Kumar and Members Smt. Chakka Susi and Sri Chaganti Nageswara Rao held that collecting ₹25 for a packaged drinking water bottle carrying an MRP of ₹18 constituted an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Facts
The complainant, D. Venkateswara Rao, visited the Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Temple at Annavaram on February 22, 2026, and purchased a one-litre packaged drinking water bottle from a licensed shop operating within the temple premises. He alleged that although the bottle carried an MRP of ₹18, the vendor collected ₹25 through a UPI transaction and claimed to be authorised to charge above the MRP. Alleging unfair trade practice and inaction by the temple authorities despite his complaint, he approached the Consumer Commission seeking refund of the excess amount, compensation, and directions against the erring licensee.
Contentions Of The Opposite Parties
Opposite Party No. 1, the Executive Officer of Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamyvari Devasthanam, denied liability, contending that the complainant had purchased the water bottle from an independent licensee and not from the temple administration. It was further submitted that the temple authorities had already initiated action against the licensee on earlier complaints of overcharging and that no deficiency in service could be attributed to them.
Opposite Party No. 2, the shop licensee, denied overcharging and claimed that the ₹25 UPI payment was towards a cool drink and a biscuit packet, and not merely a water bottle. The licensee further alleged that the complaint had been filed only to harass the shop and seek compensation.
Observations
The Commission held that the complainant had proved the purchase of the packaged drinking water bottle through the UPI payment record and photographs on record, thereby qualifying as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It found the shop licensee's defence to be contradictory, noting that the vendor simultaneously disputed the purchase of the water bottle while claiming that the ₹25 payment related to a cool drink and a biscuit packet. In the absence of billing records, CCTV footage or other supporting evidence, the Commission drew an adverse inference against the vendor and concluded that the complainant had been charged ₹25 for a bottle carrying an MRP of ₹18.
Observing that charging above the printed MRP is prohibited under the Legal Metrology Act and amounts to an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the Commission reiterated that consumer protection laws serve both compensatory and deterrent purposes. It further noted that the violation occurred at a major pilgrimage centre where consumers often have little bargaining power, making a mere refund of the excess amount insufficient to address the larger public impact of such practices.
With respect to the temple administration, the Commission found no evidence that it had authorised or encouraged overcharging. Since the authorities had already initiated proceedings against the licensee on earlier complaints, no monetary liability could be imposed on them. However, as the licensing authority, they were directed to ensure stricter compliance with consumer protection measures.
Decision
Allowing the complaint in part, the Commission directed Opposite Party No. 2 to refund the excess amount of ₹7, pay ₹10,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. It further directed the licensee to deposit ₹7 lakh as punitive damages in the Consumer Welfare Fund, holding that a substantial punitive award was necessary to deter unfair trade practices and protect consumer interests.
While dismissing the complaint against the temple administration, the Commission directed the authorities to ensure prominent display of MRPs in all licensed shops, maintain an effective complaint mechanism for devotees and make periodic public announcements advising pilgrims not to pay amounts exceeding the printed MRP. Compliance was directed within 45 days, failing which the monetary amounts would carry interest at 9% per annum.
Case Title: D. Venkateswara Rao v. The Executive Officer, Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamyvari Devasthanam & Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 22/2026