<div>It is not uncommon for consumers to be compelled to pay over and above the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) printed on the product. Whether it is inside a cricket stadium or a five star hotel, a resort, mall or a multiplex, overcharging on water bottles and other packed commodities are rampant. <br /><br />To overcome the legal requirements, some of the manufacturers have invented a new system of dual pricing. Hence, you can see a same product or commodity being sold for two or three different prices depending on the place where it is sold. Is this legal? <br /><br />In an important decision, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has said that there cannot be two MRPs, except in accordance with law. <br /><br />Like thousands of consumers, Manoj Kumar went to watch a move in the Big Cinemas, Jaipur. Before entering the complex, he had purchased a bottle of ‘Aquafina’ water bottle from a shop nearby by paying Rs 16. Again, he purchased water bottle of the same brand from the counter inside the multiplex and he had to shell down Rs 30. He was also given a bill reflecting the price as Rs 30. He was denied a complaint book, when he wanted to register his protest. <br /><br />Manoj filed a complaint in the district forum against Big Cinemas and another for charging different MRPs and got a favourable order. The forum directed the sellers to refund the amount of Rs 14 and a compensation of Rs 5,000 in addition to Rs 1,500 towards costs. <br /><br />The company’s appeal in the State Commission was dismissed and was contested before the NCDRC. Sensing the seriousness of the issue, the NCDRC summoned Director, Legal Metrology, Government of India and Pepsico India Holdings. <br /><br />The bottled water company tried to defend itself by citing related decisions of the high courts, Supreme Court etc. It even said that there is no bar under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, or the rules framed thereto have different MRPs. It was also argued that Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, contemplates different sale price for the same product for sale at two different outlets. <br /><br />In the written argument, Pepsico mentioned that the MRP fixed by them was Rs 16 and on the other hand, they called into question the jurisdiction of the NCDRC. They stated that there are two MRPs which can be fixed. <br /><br />The NCDRC observed that ‘the flip-flop stand taken by them would not go to help the legal proceedings. It said that petitioners have failed to substantiate their case and they have failed to produce certificates from the wholesalers to know as to what was the MRP on the disputed date and the bottles of that batch. <br /><br />In his affidavit, the Director of Legal Metrology, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, quoted decisions of the Supreme Court which requires mandatory marking on the product. <br /><br />Legal Metrology Act<br /><br />The attention of the NCDRC was brought to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India vs Federation of Hotels and National Restaurant Association, wherein the court held that packaged water cannot be sold over and above the MRP. <br /><br />It was contended that all packaged commodities, including the petitioner’s products in pre-packaged form, are covered under the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act.<br /><br />After going through the whole issue and arguments put forth, the NCDRC has said that instead of touching the heart of the problem, the counsel for Pepsico had cited authorities which hardly dovetail with the facts of the case before the NCDRC. It came to the conclusion that there cannot be two MRPs, except in accordance with law. <br /><br />The MRP of Rs 30 on the bottle sold to the consumer is the own making of the retailer/seller and did not have the sanction either of the wholesaler (Varun Beverages) or the manufacturers (Pepsico). <br /><br />Neither were they made parties to the complaint. They have nowhere stated that they have got two MRPs in the case of Aquafina water bottle. They are conspicuously silent about it and this silence is ‘pernicious for the petitioners’. As such NCDRC could not pass any strictures against them.<br /><br />But the NCDRC took serious view of the prevalent practice and directed Big Cinemas to deposit a sum of Rs 5 lakh with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the NCDRC. More importantly, it asked the Director, Legal Metrology to wake up, make an enquiry and take legal action against wrong doers. <br /><br /><em>(The writer is Member, Central Consumer Protection Council)</em></div>
<div>It is not uncommon for consumers to be compelled to pay over and above the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) printed on the product. Whether it is inside a cricket stadium or a five star hotel, a resort, mall or a multiplex, overcharging on water bottles and other packed commodities are rampant. <br /><br />To overcome the legal requirements, some of the manufacturers have invented a new system of dual pricing. Hence, you can see a same product or commodity being sold for two or three different prices depending on the place where it is sold. Is this legal? <br /><br />In an important decision, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has said that there cannot be two MRPs, except in accordance with law. <br /><br />Like thousands of consumers, Manoj Kumar went to watch a move in the Big Cinemas, Jaipur. Before entering the complex, he had purchased a bottle of ‘Aquafina’ water bottle from a shop nearby by paying Rs 16. Again, he purchased water bottle of the same brand from the counter inside the multiplex and he had to shell down Rs 30. He was also given a bill reflecting the price as Rs 30. He was denied a complaint book, when he wanted to register his protest. <br /><br />Manoj filed a complaint in the district forum against Big Cinemas and another for charging different MRPs and got a favourable order. The forum directed the sellers to refund the amount of Rs 14 and a compensation of Rs 5,000 in addition to Rs 1,500 towards costs. <br /><br />The company’s appeal in the State Commission was dismissed and was contested before the NCDRC. Sensing the seriousness of the issue, the NCDRC summoned Director, Legal Metrology, Government of India and Pepsico India Holdings. <br /><br />The bottled water company tried to defend itself by citing related decisions of the high courts, Supreme Court etc. It even said that there is no bar under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, or the rules framed thereto have different MRPs. It was also argued that Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, contemplates different sale price for the same product for sale at two different outlets. <br /><br />In the written argument, Pepsico mentioned that the MRP fixed by them was Rs 16 and on the other hand, they called into question the jurisdiction of the NCDRC. They stated that there are two MRPs which can be fixed. <br /><br />The NCDRC observed that ‘the flip-flop stand taken by them would not go to help the legal proceedings. It said that petitioners have failed to substantiate their case and they have failed to produce certificates from the wholesalers to know as to what was the MRP on the disputed date and the bottles of that batch. <br /><br />In his affidavit, the Director of Legal Metrology, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, quoted decisions of the Supreme Court which requires mandatory marking on the product. <br /><br />Legal Metrology Act<br /><br />The attention of the NCDRC was brought to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India vs Federation of Hotels and National Restaurant Association, wherein the court held that packaged water cannot be sold over and above the MRP. <br /><br />It was contended that all packaged commodities, including the petitioner’s products in pre-packaged form, are covered under the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act.<br /><br />After going through the whole issue and arguments put forth, the NCDRC has said that instead of touching the heart of the problem, the counsel for Pepsico had cited authorities which hardly dovetail with the facts of the case before the NCDRC. It came to the conclusion that there cannot be two MRPs, except in accordance with law. <br /><br />The MRP of Rs 30 on the bottle sold to the consumer is the own making of the retailer/seller and did not have the sanction either of the wholesaler (Varun Beverages) or the manufacturers (Pepsico). <br /><br />Neither were they made parties to the complaint. They have nowhere stated that they have got two MRPs in the case of Aquafina water bottle. They are conspicuously silent about it and this silence is ‘pernicious for the petitioners’. As such NCDRC could not pass any strictures against them.<br /><br />But the NCDRC took serious view of the prevalent practice and directed Big Cinemas to deposit a sum of Rs 5 lakh with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the NCDRC. More importantly, it asked the Director, Legal Metrology to wake up, make an enquiry and take legal action against wrong doers. <br /><br /><em>(The writer is Member, Central Consumer Protection Council)</em></div>
