Overcharging for water bottle attracts Rs. 5 L penalty!   

Settled in court 1- GS June-July 16 pg 15_cManoj Kumar went for a movie at Big Cinemas in Jaipur, run by Reliance Media Works. He bought a bottle of Aquafina water and was charged Rs. 30 though the printed MRP was Rs. 16. Upset, Manoj asked for the complaint book but this was not given to him. Manoj filed a complaint before the District Forum. Reliance contended that the bottles were purchased at a printed MRP of Rs. 30 specifically to be sold in cinema halls. It alleged that Manoj had bought his bottle from a local shop and had filed a false complaint.

The forum upheld Manoj’s complaint and asked the company to refund Rs. 14 and pay the complainant Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,500 towards legal expenses. Reliance challenged the order before the Rajasthan State Commission, but the appeal was dismissed. The company then filed a revision petition before the National Commission.


The National Commission felt the crucial issue was whether a cinema hall could charge a special MRP for products. It warned Pepsico India Holdings (manufacturer of Aquafina) to have only one MRP. It held Reliance liable of “illegal enrichment” and “extorting money from their customers” and set a penalty of Rs. 5 lakh.

Point of law

Overcharging consumers is not permissible. Also, dual pricing is an unfair trade practice.

Fake job offers land immigration firm in soup  Settled in court 2 - GS June-July 16 pg 16_c 

Anand Lakhlani of Ahmedabad wanted to immigrate to Canada. He was promised by NB International that he would get permanent resident (PR) visa of Canada within a year. Accordingly, he made an initial payment and signed an agreement. On NB’s advice, Anand paid Rs. 91,560 (2000 Canadian dollars) to another party to source a qualified employer for him.

What followed was a frustrating experience for Anand. He received job offers but they were either fake or not suiting his profile and hence were rejected by Service Canada. Meanwhile, he had to make further payments. Eventually, NB threw up its hands and said it could not help him. Anand asked for a fee refund. As the firm refused, he contacted CERS, Ahmedabad. When mediation efforts by CERS and a legal notice failed to get results, a complaint was filed in the District Forum.


The forum upheld the complaint and ordered NB International to refund the rupee equivalent of 4000 Canadian dollars with 9% interest. In addition, the firm was told to pay the complainant Rs. 5,000 towards compensation for mental agony and legal expenses.

Point of law

If an immigration consultancy firm fails to fulfil its commitment it has to refund the fees.

Blog Attachment
Subscribe to Newsletter
SIGN UP for the Newsletter.
Exclusive from Consumer Education and Research Centre!
Thank You. We will contact you as soon as possible.
"A placerat mauris placerat et penatibus porta aliquet sed dapibus, pulvinar urna cum aliquet arcu lectus sed tortor aliquet sed dapibus."
John Doe, Astronomer
Bubble Company Inc. © 2011-2014