Charging More Than MRP For Water Bottles Prohibited Under Legal Metrology Rules And CPA, Punjab State Commission Holds Drinkery 51 Bar Liable

Brief Facts:

Shri Harsh Vasu Gupta (“Complainant”) visited a bar named Drinkery 51 (“Respondent”) located in Chandigarh. The Complainant and his friends ordered around 20 items out of which there were two Kinley Water Bottles. The Respondent charged Rs. 99/- for the two water bottles, originally priced at Rs. 20/- each MRP. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”).

The Respondent contended that the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 is silent regarding the imposition of costs over the MRP by restaurants and hotels. Further, the Complainant failed to raise the complaint regarding food and services either with the Respondent or Zomato. The District Commission accepted the Respondent's contention and dismissed the complaint. Dissatisfied with the order, the Complainant filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (“State Commission”).

The Respondent failed to appear before the State Commission. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations by the Commission:

At the outset, the State Commission perused Rule 2(m) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 which defines 'retail sale price' as the maximum price at which the commodity in packaged form may be sold to the customers. The reading of the provision made it clear that MRP includes all taxes, packaging costs and profit margin of the retailers. The legislative intent behind this provision is to ensure transparency and ensure that there are no hidden costs attached to an item apart from what's printed as MRP on the packaging.

The State Commission also held that imposition of costs over the MRP amounted to a deficiency in service under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and stood in violation of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The bench also remarked that water is a fundamental and essential commodity and the right to clean and safe drinking water is a basic human right.

Considering the aforementioned observations, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Commission and directed the Respondent to refund the excess amount and pay Rs. 3,000/- compensation to the Complainant within 30 days.