Need For Transparency In Liquor Pricing, Kangra District Commission Orders Sunil Wines Shop To Pay Rs. 25k Compensation, Rs. 10k Litigation Costs

Recently, the Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur (Members) imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on a liquor shop owner in Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh for charging prices exceeding the Maximum Retail Price on the purchase of beer and whiskey bottles. Further, the bench also recommended to the state government that liquor prices should be prominently displayed in shops to prevent overcharging. Brief Facts of the Case: Tarun Chaurasia (“Complainant”) contended that during a visit to Sunil Wines (“Liquor Shop”), he purchased beer and whiskey bottles, only to discover that he had been charged prices significantly higher than the clearly marked Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on the bottles. Specifically, on May 19, 2023, the Complainant acquired eight bottles of Kingfisher Ultra Pint, each priced at Rs. 130, despite the MRP being prominently displayed at Rs. 85. Additionally, he purchased one bottle of Tuborg (1 liter) for Rs. 180, aligning with the MRP. Furthermore, the Complainant bought four bottles of Budweiser beer at Rs. 230 each, in contrast to the MRP of Rs. 225. Lastly, he obtained a bottle of Blender Pride whiskey (500ml) for Rs. 500, surpassing the MRP of Rs. 480. The Complainant contended that these instances of overcharging constituted a clear violation of his consumer rights, resulting in financial losses and mental distress. In response to this perceived unfair and unethical business practice, he filed a complaint before the Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”), seeking a refund of the excess amount paid (totaling Rs. 2,240), compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000, penalties against the liquor shop to deter future unfair trade practices, and measures to ensure such practices do not recur. On the other hand, the liquor shop defended its actions by asserting that the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology in Dharamsala had already imposed a penalty on them for the same issue. They argued that the complaint did not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, as it pertained to unfair trade practices. It further contended that the bottles sold were of old stock, and the new MRP rates were not printed on them. Notably, the shop owner did not file a reply to the complaint within the stipulated time, resulting in the striking off of their right to do so. Observations by the Court: The District Commission rejected the arguments put forth by the liquor shop, which included claims that they had already been penalized by the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology and that the liquor bottles sold were of old stock. The District Commission reasoned that the violation of consumer rights and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act were distinct issues from the penalties imposed by the weights and measurement department. It emphasized that the consumer complaint fell within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The District Commission established unequivocally that the complainant had been subjected to overcharging by the liquor shop. The prices levied on liquor bottles purchased by the complainant were found to exceed the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) prominently displayed on the bottles. This overcharging was deemed a clear violation of the complainant’s consumer rights as enshrined in the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. In light of this violation, the District Commission issued a series of directives. It ordered the liquor shop to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000 to the complainant. Additionally, it directed the liquor shop to bear the litigation costs incurred by the complainant, amounting to Rs. 10,000. The District Commission also advised the state government to take measures to ensure greater transparency in the pricing of liquor. It suggested that liquor rates should be prominently displayed in shops, using bold letters and both Hindi and English language, to prevent consumers from falling victim to overcharging. Case: Tarun Chaurasia vs Sunil Wine Shop Case No.: CC/185/2023 Advocate for the Complainant: Ms. Ashima Advocate for the Respondent: Sh. R.K. Azad Click Here To Read/Download Order

Need For Transparency In Liquor Pricing, Kangra District Commission Orders Sunil Wines Shop To Pay Rs. 25k Compensation, Rs. 10k Litigation Costs

Smita Singh

Tags