|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, all packed goods should carry certain essential information on the contents of the package, such as its weight or volume, the name and address of the manufacturer, the date of manufacture, and in case of food packages, the best before date and, of course, the maximum retail price (MRP). The maximum retail price is inclusive of all taxes and a retailer can sell at a price below the MRP. In fact consumers should always look for retailers who sell below the MRP because the MRP is the maximum retail price allowed for that commodity and not the actual price, and a retailer can well reduce his margin built into the MRP. However, it is an offence to sell at a price above the MRP. Sometimes it so happens that the manufacturer increases the price of a product—-maybe because of the changes in duties or increase in the cost of production—-and the new packages carry the revised MRP. Obviously, this new price does not apply to the stock already with the retailer. And this is where retailers try to make a quick buck by trying to sell the old stock at the new revised rate, even though doing so is an unfair trade practice. One such case came up before the apex consumer court or the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently. The product in question was tarpaulin. According to the complainant, the price mentioned on the ‘duckback baby sheet’ purchased by him was Rs 92, but he was sold the sheet at Rs 112. The seller’s argument was that the price of the sheet was actually Rs 124 but it had an old label indicating the MRP as Rs 92. So after discussion, the price was settled between them (the seller and the buyer) at Rs 112. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that if the old label indicated Rs 92 as the MRP, then charging more than that constituted an unfair trade practice. And as a punishment for indulging in such a practice, the commission used the relatively new provision in the Consumer Protection Act to impose exemplary damage and asked the seller to pay the consumer punitive damages of Rs 10,000. The apex consumer court, before which the seller filed an appeal, said it fully agreed with the view of the state commission. While doing so, it pointed out that if the price had been increased from Rs 92 to Rs 125 due to increased cost of production and transportation, that would apply only to the new stock. The price of the old stock cannot change. In the circumstances, the old stock cannot be sold at the new price. Therefore, the state commission was right in imposing exemplary compensation. (M/S Cargo Tarpaulin Industries vs Sri Mallikarjun B.Kori, revision petition number 2132 of 2007, decided on July 5, 2007). In a somewhat similar case, the apex consumer court considered whether it should impose exemplary damages, but eventually did not. But the dealer and the manufacturer were asked to refund the excess amount charged from the consumer, along with 12 per cent interest calculated from the date of collecting the money (in 1996). The national commission also ordered costs of Rs 25,000 to be paid to the consumer. In this case, following an upward revision in the excise duty on cars, the price of Tata Sumo had gone up by Rs 38,344. However, the dealer had charged from the consumer this additional amount on a car that had left the manufacturing unit much before the excise hike. So whatever you are buying, make sure that you are paying the right price and are not being overcharged. And if you have a grievance on this score, you can complain to the Department of Weights and Measures. It can take action against the retailer. But by filing a complaint before the consumer court, you can ask for exemplary or punitive damages to be imposed on the retailer. This would be in addition to the compensation for any loss or injury caused and acts as a warning or admonition to the retailer and the manufacturer. The consumer courts can also give appropriate directions to the manufacturer and the dealer ( as they did in the case of Telco) not to indulge in such unfair trade practice in future.
|
||
|
|
||
