Skip to main content

Shop fined Rs 50 lakh for charging Rs 75 extra on drink

That October morning in 2009, a vendor at Chennai airport decided to make an extra Rs 75. Five years later, he may be poorer by Rs 50 lakh. Charging a customer double for an energy drink has attracted a strong censure from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and a fine of Rs50 lakh for the vendor- Snack Bar, a unit of Saptagiri Restaurant.

NCDRC lambasted Snack Bar for having collected Rs150 for a can of Red Bull from Delhi resident D K Chopra, while the retail price was Rs75. It also came down heavily on airport authorities who it said were “working in cahoots” with stall owners to obtain higher rates for licences. The commission directed the stall owner also to pay Rs10,000 to Chopra.

Chopra bought the drink at the airport in October 2009. Unhappy over being charged almost double, he issued a legal notice, but the stall-owner did not reply. Chopra then moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF) for a compensation of Rs2 lakh for “harassment and mental agony,” and Rs11,000 as “travel and legal expenses.” Chopra then filed a first appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). This too was dismissed on the grounds that he had failed to prove the MRP of the product. He submitted two receipts for purchasing the drinks, which were not signed by the owner.

He approached the NCDRC. Counsel for Snack Bar said they were entitled to collect twice the MRP and submitted a letter from the deputy general manager, commercial at Chennai international airport. The letter mentioned the price of “imported juice/energy drink” as Rs140.

Questioning the logic of its classification as a juice, it said “by no stretch of imagination Red Bull can be called an imported juice energy drink.” “Such a price list can be created any time and has exiguous value,” said the commission. It also said the letter did not have endorsement from the Airports Authority of India. “Even if it is assumed that AAI had given permission, they are not empowered to do so. AAI cannot disturb MRP rates,” the commission said.

 Article referred: http://www.morungexpress.com/business/115040.html

Comments

  1. Anonymous22 December 2015 at 03:38

    can you please give me the case name with citation? please

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somdutt Bose14 January 2016 at 00:18

      NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
      NEW DELHI


      REVISION PETITION NO. 4090 OF 2012
      (From the order dated 10.04.2012 in First Appeal No. 118/2011 of
      State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, TAMILNADU,
      CHENNAI AT BENCH-II )
      WITH
      IA/1/2012
      (DELAY)
      D.K. Chopra
      1039, Sector-A, Pocket-A
      Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070 …Petitioner

      Versus
      Snack Bar
      (A unit of Saptagiri Restaurant)
      Kamaraj Domestic Terminal
      Chennai Airport, Chennai – 600 027 …Respondent

      Delete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more