FHRAI V/S UNION OF

INDIA
• Government in its affidavit against FHRAI had said that charging more than the MRP for pre-packaged or
pre-packed products in hotels and restaurants was an offence under the Legal Metrology Act.
• Selling bottled mineral water above MRP would attract monetary penalties and jail terms for the management
personnel of hotels and restaurants.
• The authorities, under the erstwhile Standards of Weights and Measures Act, had threatened to prosecute
hotels and restaurants, saying they should charge only the MRP on products such as bottled mineral water.
• The FHRAI filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, challenging notices issued to them. A single-judge
bench of the court held in March 2007 that charging in excess of the MRP printed on the bottles of mineral
water while serving customers in hotels and restaurants does not violate any provision of the Standards of
Weights and Measures Act.
• “The customer does not enter a hotel or a restaurant to make a simple purchase of these commodities. It may
well be that a client would order nothing beyond a bottle of water or a beverage, but his direct purpose in
doing so would clearly travel to enjoying the ambience available therein and incidentally to the ordering of
any article for consumption,” the single judge said.
• The government filed an appeal in the division bench of the court, after which the Standards of Weights and
Measures Act was repealed by the Legal Metrology Act in 2010. The court then disposed of the matter and
said the parties could examine if the new act was being implemented in the wrong manner.
• The Supreme Court’s judgement on Tuesday was based on the special leave petition filed by the FHRAI,
which argued that the definition of sale in both the new and old acts was the same.
 COCA – COLA V/S
SIDDHARTH MANCHANDA
• Petition against wave cinemas, pentagon mall and coca cola
• Overcharged for diet coke
• Passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 115. Compensation of Rs.1000
and fine of Rs.1,00,000

DEFENSE
• It is clarified that there may be two or more prices for same product to sale at different places.
• Complaint is not maintainable.
• Not prohibited to fix or declare more than one M.R.P. for the same product available for the sale at
different places for different classes of customers.
• There is no cause of action for the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act,
• The declaring different M.R.Ps. for the similar goods to be sold from different channels at different
locations in the same state, cannot be considered to be an unfair trade practice or malpractice,
resulting in manipulation of prices and imposing unjustified costs on the consumer.
• There is thus no 'Deficiency in service' or 'unfair trade practice' nor has it caused any 'loss' or
'injury' to a large number of consumers
LEGALITY
• It is stated that Rule 6(1)(e) of The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 issued
under The Legal Metrology Act, 2009, the retail sale price of a package, being the maximum retail
price (M.R.P.) at which the package may be sold to the ultimate consumer is required to be duly
declared on the package, which has been duly declared by the answering opposite party on its
products.
• Concept of dual pricing has been judicially upheld and also legislatively recognized.
DHARAMVIR SUHAG V/S
STATE OF HARYANA