Ishita Khanna Vs. Ghazal Restaurant, Chandigarh
A/142/ 2025
Dt.09-09-2025
In a recent ruling, the Chandigarh State Consumer Commission observed that restaurants cannot charge more than the MRP for pre-packed products like mineral water and packaged water, since MRP is the maximum price a product can be sold for. It has fined a restaurant for charging more than MRP printed on the packaged water bottle.
The case in brief.
Consumer Ms. Khanna visited Ghazal Restaurant in Chandigarh for dinner and, after having dinner, at the time of making payment, she noticed that there was a charge of Rs.55/- for packaged water bottle Aquafina whereas the MRP on the bottle was Rs.20/- (including all taxes). In addition, the restaurant also charged GST on Rs.55/- though the MRP clearly included all taxes. The consumer filed a case in the District Consumer Commission on the grounds of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice (CC/62/2024).
The Opposite party pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on their part. They said they are one of the oldest restaurant in the city of Chandigarh, fully air conditioned, having dining capacity for large number of persons and is known for its food quality ambience and customer service. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already ruled that the restaurants can sell the mineral water bottle above the MRP. The people come and enjoy food and pays to the opposite Party for its service. On merits, it was alleged that it is not a simple case of selling of mineral water, rather, the Opposite Party has been providing comfort and ambience to the customers and as such also incurred extra cost over the infrastructure.
After hearing the parties, the District Consumer Commission dismissed the case being devoid of any merit.
Not satisfied with the outcome, the Consumer filed an Appeal with the State Consumer Commission (A/142/2025).
The State Consumer Commission considered as to whether the respondent/restaurant could charge over and above the maximum retail price (MRP) of the water bottle and answered to this question in the negative.
The Commission quoted Rule 2(m) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011 which forbids any retailer or seller from selling the good(s) over and above its MRP. Further, Rule 18(2) of the aforesaid Rules of 2011 prohibits any retail dealer or other person (including manufacturer, packer, importer or wholesale dealer) from making any sale of a packaged commodity at a price exceeding the retail sale price. The Commission further observed that the Respondent’s contention that its ambience, air Conditioning, seating capacity, and service justify the higher pricing of the bottled water is misplaced.
As regards the reliance placed by the Respondent on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India & Ors., 2018 AIR SC) 72, the Commission found the same to be clearly distinguishable on facts for the reasons recorded hereinabove. That decision primarily addresses the issue of regulatory competencies and the composite nature of services in certain contexts; it does not confer any blanket authority upon restaurants to charge above the printed MRP for a separately billed, sealed, pre-packaged commodity supplied to a Consumer.
For the above reasons, the SCC admitted the Appeal and directed the Restaurant to refund the excess charged amount and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3000/-.
Recent Comments