District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Pathanamthitta: In a consumer complaint filed under Section 35, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, complainant seeking compensation alleging overcharging of ₹10 on a bottle of beer purchased from a Kerala State Beverages Corporation (KSBC) outlet, the Bench of George Baby, President and Nishad Thankappan, Member, held that charging a price higher than the MRP printed on a packaged commodity constitutes an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Court observed that,
“The printed MRP on the package is the statutory ceiling price available to the consumer at the point of sale. Internal Government orders relied upon by the seller cannot justify charging an amount higher than the MRP without proving compliance with the Legal Metrology Rules.”
Background
The complainant purchased a Budweiser Magnum 650 ml beer bottle from a KSBC outlet at Perunadu, Pathanamthitta, on 9 March 2025. While the bottle carried a printed MRP of ₹170, the invoice issued by the outlet reflected a sale price of ₹180.
Further, when the complainant questioned the discrepancy, the outlet staff informed him that the price shown in the bill had to be paid and that the increase was based on Government directions. Alleging overcharging and unfair treatment by the staff, the complainant approached DCDRC seeking refund and compensation, calling unfair trade method “a trend”.
The opposite party admitted the sale but contended that the increase in price resulted from Government notifications imposing social security cess and revising liquor prices. It was argued that, considering the enormous volume of liquor stock held across warehouses and retail outlets, relabelling existing bottles with revised MRPs was not practically feasible. Reliance was placed on government orders and Rule 18(3), Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
Issues
Whether charging a price higher than the MRP printed on a beer bottle constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
Whether government orders revising liquor prices could justify charging an amount exceeding the MRP printed on the package?
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Commission observed that the beer bottle purchased by the complainant was a “pre-packaged commodity” within the meaning of Section 2(l), Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and therefore governed by the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
The Commission noted that Rule 6(1)(j) mandates declaration of retail sale price on every packaged commodity and Rule 18(2) expressly prohibits a retail dealer from selling any commodity at a price exceeding the retail sale price declared on the package.
Examining invoice and photograph of the bottle, the Commission found that the complainant had established that the bottle carried an MRP of ₹170 while the retailer collected ₹180. The initial burden having been discharged by the complainant, it was for KSBC to prove that the excess collection was legally permissible.
The Commission rejected the contention that internal government orders or administrative pricing directions could automatically justify charging above the printed MRP. It held that a consumer cannot reasonably be expected to verify departmental communications or government files before purchasing a packaged commodity.
The Commission further observed that if the opposite party sought to rely upon Rule 18(3) permitting revised pricing following tax changes, it was required to establish compliance with the statutory conditions prescribed therein. Since no material was produced to demonstrate that the alleged tax revision fell within the statutory framework relied upon by KSBC, the defence remained unsubstantiated.
Holding that the printed MRP represented the price on which the consumer was entitled to rely, the Commission concluded that charging a higher amount than the MRP constituted a clear violation of consumer rights. The act amounted to both “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practice” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Commission also emphasised that KSBC, being a government-owned corporation, was expected to act as a model vendor and ensure strict compliance with statutory obligations governing retail sales.
Accordingly, DCDRC directed KSBC to refund the excess amount of ₹10 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. It further awarded ₹15,000 as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs. The complaint was allowed.
[Akash A.T. v. Kerala State Beverage Corpn., CC No. 96 of 2025, decided on 3-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Opposite Party: Ajil V. Rajan, Advocate
