•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student
other

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

NLSIU students win in consumer tribunal v Pepsi MRPs

Five NLSIU Bangalore students with their legal aid clinic have won their consumer forum action against Pepsi Co for charging differential minimum retail prices (MRPs) on beverages, with the forum finding that the practices were “unfair” and “illegal”.

The consumer forum, vide an order dated 1 April 2011 that was released last week, ruled:

“These printing different rent MRPs for the same material without any change in the material either in the contents or in the quantity is nothing but an unfair trade practice and selling it to the consumers is really unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service. This has to be curtailed.”

“How can the same material have a different M.R.P. at different places? There is no answer. If the retailer wants to sell it for a higher price, it is his business and he has to satisfy the customers that he is selling it at a particular price in case customers wants to take it they may take, if they may not take or they may reject it, but the manufacturer cannot print different prices for the same commodity, it is nothing but an unfair trade practice.

“As the prints different M.R.P. will allow the retailer to gain more profit for the same material which is impermissible in law. The complainants are the customers. The material purchased at a particular place has a particular M.R.P. the same material must have the same M.RP. at different places also. It cannot have two different M.R.Ps. Hence, printing different M.R.Ps is bad in law, is unfair trade practice.”

NLSIU student and complainant Adithya Banavar, who along with four others filed the complaint last year in October told Legally India: “The Forum has directed Pepsi to stop marking differential MRPs on same quantities of products. We were also awarded 5000 in damages and 2000 in costs.”

However, Pepsi Co was expected to appeal before the state commission, according to Banavar.

Advocate B S Ravikiran had appeared for Pepsi Co while the other opposite parties - the mall and the retailer - both abstained themselves from the proceeding.

The forum absolved the mall’s liability on the basis that its role was confined to leasing out and collecting rent without partaking conduct of business in selling of food or drinks and had no say in fixing or charging the impugned taxes.

The students were assisted by NLSIU’s legal services clinic in first getting the complaint admitted before the consumer district forum of Bangalore in February of this year.

Pepsi Co was unavailable for comment at the time of going to press.

Photo by mike9alive

Click to show 10 comments
at your own risk
(alt+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.