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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more