#UnfairTradePractices

[tmarshconnors]

Selling Out Our Economic Heart: To China

Introduction: In recent years, there has been a growing concern over the increasing influence of China in global economics and, more specifically, the extent to which our own country has become entangled in this economic relationship. It is disheartening to witness how our leaders have seemingly sold out our economic heart to China, prioritizing short-term gains over long-term sustainability and jeopardizing our national interests. In this post, I will delve into the alarming consequences of this sell-out and the urgent need for a reevaluation of our economic ties with China.

Economic Dependence: By relying heavily on China as a trading partner and a source of investment, we have become dangerously dependent on their economy. This economic reliance leaves us vulnerable to the fluctuations and policies of the Chinese government, putting our economic stability at risk. It is essential to diversify our economic relationships and reduce this overreliance to safeguard our own economic interests.

Job Losses and Outsourcing: The sell-out to China has resulted in the loss of numerous domestic jobs and the outsourcing of manufacturing and production to Chinese companies. Our own industries and workforce have suffered as a result, as companies seek cheaper labour and lower production costs in China. This erosion of domestic industries undermines our economic resilience and jeopardizes the livelihoods of our own citizens.

Intellectual Property Theft: China's lax enforcement of intellectual property rights has been a significant concern for our country. By conducting business with China, we inadvertently expose our technological advancements, proprietary knowledge, and trade secrets to the risk of theft. This intellectual property theft not only undermines innovation but also harms the competitive edge of our own industries on a global scale.

Unfair Trade Practices: China's unfair trade practices, including subsidies for their own industries and the manipulation of currency values, have had a detrimental impact on our economy. These practices create an uneven playing field, putting our businesses at a disadvantage and compromising the competitiveness of our products and services in the global market. It is imperative to address these unfair trade practices and establish a level playing field for fair economic competition.

Human Rights Concerns: China's well-documented record of human rights abuses, including forced labour, suppression of dissent, and violations of basic freedoms, should raise alarm bells regarding our economic ties. By turning a blind eye to these human rights abuses, we risk being complicit in supporting and perpetuating such atrocities. Our economic interests should never come at the expense of our ethical principles and human rights values.

National Security Risks: The deepening economic ties with China also pose significant national security risks. The Chinese government's potential access to critical infrastructure, sensitive information, and strategic assets can compromise our sovereignty and national security. It is crucial to reassess our economic partnerships with a careful consideration of the potential security implications involved.

Conclusion: The sale of our economic heart to China has resulted in numerous detrimental consequences, including economic dependence, job losses, intellectual property theft, unfair trade practices, human rights concerns, and national security risks. It is high time for our leaders to prioritize our national interests, diversify our economic relationships, and establish a more balanced and sustainable approach to global trade. We must not sacrifice our economic autonomy and ethical principles for short-term gains, but rather foster a resilient and independent economy that safeguards the interests and values of our nation and its citizens.

[legalupanishad]

Unfair Trade Practices in India: Legal Framework Explained

This article on 'Unfair Trade Practices in India: Legal Framework' was written by Shriharshini Balachandar, an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

Unfair trade practices refer to activities or practices that are deceptive, fraudulent, or unfair in nature and carried out by businesses or individuals to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors. These practices can cause harm to consumers, competitors, or the market as a whole. In India, various laws govern unfair trade practices, including the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Competition Act, 2002, and the Indian Contract Act, 1872. We will discuss the legal framework for unfair trade practices in India and analyze some significant case laws related to the topic. This article deals with the concept and laws regulating Unfair trade practices in India.

Unfair Trade Practices: Definition

The term "unfair trade practise" (UTP) broadly refers to a trade practise that adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practise that is prohibited by a statute or has been recognised as actionable under law or by a court judgement in order to promote the sale, use, supply of any goods or the provision of any service.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN INDIA

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA) is a comprehensive legislation that aims to protect the interests of consumers in India. The Act defines unfair trade practices as any deceptive or unfair practice that is made by a seller in connection with the promotion, sale, or supply of any goods or services. It also provides for the establishment of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) which has the power to investigate and prosecute unfair trade practices. Furthermore, the CPA has also introduced strict penalties for violations of consumer rights. The Act provides for imprisonment and hefty fines for entities found guilty of engaging in unfair trade practices. This has significantly deterred market players from engaging in such practices and has helped in promoting fair competition in the market. In the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court of India held that the promotion of a product by claiming that it has a unique or special property without any scientific basis is a deceptive trade practice. In this case, Hindustan Unilever promoted its product, "Pepsodent Germicheck," by claiming that it was "102% better" than other toothpaste brands, without providing any scientific evidence to support the claim. The Court held that such a claim was misleading and amounted to an unfair trade practice. Another important case that dealt with unfair trade practices under the CPA is the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. In this case, Cadila Healthcare had challenged the marketing practices of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, alleging that the latter had engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by making false and misleading claims about the efficacy of its product. The Court held that such claims were in violation of the CPA and directed Dr. Reddy's Laboratories to withdraw the advertisement and pay compensation to Cadila Healthcare. The Competition Act, 2002 The Competition Act, 2002 (CA) is another important legislation that deals with unfair trade practices in India. The Act aims to promote competition in the market by prohibiting anti-competitive practices. The act aims to promote and sustain competition in the market and protect the interests of consumers. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the act and has been given the power to investigate and penalize entities that engage in anti-competitive practices. Under the CA, unfair trade practices are defined as those practices that distort competition in the market or are likely to do so. In the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India, the Delhi High Court held that an agreement between two car manufacturers to fix the prices of their spare parts was an unfair trade practice. The Court held that such an agreement was anti-competitive in nature and violated the provisions of the CA. Another important case that dealt with unfair trade practices under the CA is the case of Pfizer Ltd. v. Union of India. In this case, Pfizer had challenged the decision of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to cap the prices of its drug. The Supreme Court of India held that Pfizer had engaged in an unfair trade practice by charging exorbitant prices for its drug, which was essential for the treatment of a life-threatening disease. The Court held that such a practice was exploitative and went against the public interest.

Unfair Trade Practices in India: Legal Framework Explained The Indian Contract Act, 1872 The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) deals with the formation and enforcement of contracts in India. the Indian Contract Act, 1872 plays a significant role in promoting fair and ethical business practices in India. The act provides for the requirement of free consent, the performance and discharge of contracts, and the enforceability of contracts. The effective implementation of the act would require the active participation of all stakeholders, including consumers, market players, and the authorities responsible for enforcing the law. Under the ICA, a contract that involves fraud or misrepresentation is voidable at the option of the aggrieved party. Therefore, any unfair trade practice that involves fraud or misrepresentation can be challenged under the ICA. In the case of A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court of India held that a seller who conceals material information about a product while selling it to a buyer is guilty of unfair trade practice. In this case, A.V. Fernandez had sold a car to the complainant without disclosing that the car had met with an accident in the past. The Court held that such a practice was fraudulent and amounted to an unfair trade practice. Another important case that dealt with unfair trade practices under the ICA is the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service. In this case, Indian Oil Corporation terminated the dealership agreement with Amritsar Gas Service on the ground that the latter had engaged in malpractices and had indulged in black marketing of LPG cylinders. The Court held that the termination of the agreement without any prior notice or opportunity of being heard was an unfair trade practice and went against the principles of natural justice. Other relevant legislation Apart from the above-mentioned legislations, various other laws in India address specific unfair trade practices. For instance, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, of 1940 prohibits misleading advertisements for drugs and cosmetics. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has also issued regulations to curb insider trading and other unfair trade practices in the securities market.

Suggestions

- The government and regulatory bodies should work to increase awareness among consumers and businesses about the legal framework regarding unfair trade practices in India. This can be done through various mediums like seminars, workshops, and social media campaigns. - There should be stricter enforcement of the existing laws, and the government should ensure that the regulatory authorities have the necessary resources to carry out their duties effectively. This will act as a deterrent to businesses engaging in unfair trade practices. - The complaint filing process should be simplified and made more accessible to consumers. This will encourage more people to come forward and report instances of unfair trade practices.

Conclusion

Unfair trade practices are a menace that can harm consumers, competitors, and the market as a whole. Therefore, it is essential to have a robust legal framework to deal with such practices. These laws provide stringent penalties and compensation mechanisms to deter businesses from engaging in such practices. Through the case laws discussed above, we can see that the courts in India have been vigilant in enforcing these laws and protecting the interests of consumers and competitors. It is essential for businesses to be aware of their obligations under these laws and to ensure that they do not engage in any unfair trade practices. In conclusion, the legal framework for unfair trade practices in India is robust, and the courts have been proactive in enforcing these laws to ensure a fair and competitive market.

References

- Yash Agrawal, Unfair Trade Practices in India: A Comparative Analysis Between the Competition and Consumer Laws, SSRN, 4 June 2020, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3619075 - Study of Unfair Trade Practices in India, Lex Peeps, 17 July 2021, available at: https://lexpeeps.in/study-of-unfair-trade-practices-in-india/ - Raj Karn, Unfair Trade Practices, 4(3) International Journal of Law Management and Humanities (2021) Read the full article

[seemabhatnagar]

State Commission of Tamil Nadu held forcing patient to buy medicine from their Hospital is unfair Trade Practice

Before the Circuit Bench the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai

V. Mythili v. Joseph Hospital & Dr. Agnes

Consumer Complaint No.44/2012

Heard by Presiding Judicial Member Thiru S Karuppiah,

Facts:

The complainant, Mythili filed this complaint through her sister’s husband, Mr. Balasubramaniam her power of attorney holder.  Complainant approached Joseph Hospital at Pallayamkottai, for treatment of hysterectomy she was admitted on 10.04.20120 & operated on 12.04.20120 and the operation went on uneventful as such she had to stay in the hospital as inpatient till 22.04.2010.

It was informed to the hospital and to the Dr. that her sister also her attendant Kalyani was having the same blood group as that of the complainant. Still the hospital forced the attendant, Kalyani to purchase blood bottle for Rs.1100/- from blood bank.

During the transmission of blood and after the blood transmission the complainant developed some complications and she was immediately brought to Intensive Care Unit and treated with medicines.

The complainant and her attendant were forced to purchase medicines only from the hospital’s pharmacy and they were not allowed to purchase medicines from outside pharmacy.

The complainant’s attendant were ill-treated when she purchased medicines from outside.

The Doctor and the Hospital directed the complainant and her attendants to purchase the medicines in large quantity without assigning any reason. To their surprise the hospital’s pharmacy charged more than the Maximum Retail Price.

As such Complain were forced to file the complaint for forcing them to buy medicines in large quantity and that to over and above the Maximum Retail Price amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Prayer:

Hospital be directed to refund the value of the medicines and also to furnish the medical records such as history of treatment, discharge summary.

Direction to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant. and another sum of Rs.18,00,000/-as compensation payable to the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Welfare Fund for financial loss or injury suffered by the large number of patients.

Submission of Hospital:

There is no deficiency in service and the hospital has not indulged in any unfair trade practice.

In fact, the complainant suffered from very huge fibroids, other doctors were not willing to treat her, she was referred to this hospital and because of the efficiency of the doctors herein the problem has been rectified and surgery was done successfully.

The medicines were purchased and kept by the hospital only for the patient’s welfare and as for keeping those medicines it costs more.

As such Complaint is liable for dismissal.

Issue before the Forum

Whether the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service and indulged in any Unfair Trade Practice?

Observation of the Forum

The opposite party’s denial is not specific with regard to each allegation rather it is very general in nature.

In their written statement Hospital has given an evasive reply to the allegation of the Complainant that despite her sister was having the same blood group, her attendant sister was forced to buy blood from the blood bank.

No response was submitted by the hospital the necessity for purchasing blood from outside.

No medical history and treatment particulars were produced by the Hospital in their reply.

Operation theatre notes were also not produced.

When the complainant alleged that she was forced to buy a large quantity of medicines than required but there is no proper and specific denial in the pleadings filed by the opposite parties.

The complainant has given elaborate tabular column with regard to the quantity of medicines purchased by her in her complaint, but there is no whisper about those particulars.

The complainant gave very elaborate particulars what was the price bought by her and what was the MRP for the above medicines. To this Hospital replied the medicines were kept for the use of inpatients and hence it costs more.

More so, the power of attorney holder of the complainant sent a complaint to the Drug Inspector and Revenue Inspector as well. The hospital was inspected and irregularities in keeping and selling the medicines were found violating the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Later, hospital filed additional affidavit contending that the power of attorney is not a competent person to depose the complainant’s facts which was in exclusive knowledge of the complainant.

Whereas, the complainant in her power of attorney has clearly stated that power of attorney holder is his brother-in-law and is personally aware of all the facts. So, this attempt of the hospital to escape from the liability also failed.

Complainant’s facts were supported by the documentary evidence.

However, the patient was cured by the Hospital. There is no proof for ill-treatment.

But forcing the patient to buy medicines than required and charging more amount than MRP certainly amounted to unfair trade practice.

Order

Commission found that the Doctors and the hospital have committed deficiency in service as well as were indulged in unfair trade practice.

This Commission directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Welfare Fund.

Pay another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for extra amount charged & for mental agony suffered by her within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The opposite parties were also directed jointly and severally to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs.

Seema Bhatnagar

[legalservices]

[We welcome your comments and feedback] ✌

[countrymadefoods]

Chinese outlook: Trade dispute, tariffs slow U.S. soybean sales (http://www.agrinews-pubs.com/news/chinese-outlook-trade-dispute-tariffs-slow-u-s-soybean-sales/article_52f224a7-394e-5843-bdb9-1886885985d5.html)

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates China will import about 94 million tons of soybeans during the current marketing year. The Chinese Ministry of Agriculture projects soybean imports of 83.5 million tons.  Brazil exported 76 million tons of soybeans worldwide last year, including 59.4 million tons to China between October 2017 and September 2018. 

China’s imports have historically run in a cycle with high imports from the U.S. between September and February — Brazil’s growing season — and then high imports from Brazil between March and August.  “China obviously has a good stock built up right now and is not interested at this point in time in buying U.S. soybeans. If there is going to be some needs for China it probably won’t be until that December-through-March period, meaning sales made in November, December or January period.”

CHINA HAS 124-MILLION-ACRE SOYBEAN GAP, ECONOMIST SAYS CHINA STILL HAS A HEAVY RELIANCE ON SOYBEAN IMPORTS (https://www.agriculture.com/markets/analysis/china-has-124-million-acre-gap-vs-soybean-consumption-demand-economist-says)

“China’s total harvested acres for these 13 crops since 1990, over the last three decades, has been remarkably steady at nearly 290 million acres. This trend is different than what was observed at the global level as acreage expanded after 2000. For the current year (2018/2019), China is expected to harvest 288.8 million acres of these crops, or 12.5% of the global total. 

Since 2008/2009, however, acreage equivalent domestic consumption has far outpaced harvested acres. The implications of equivalent consumption outpacing production (harvested acres) over multiple years are that China has relied heavily on imports. While this isn’t a new story, it’s perhaps a new look at the magnitude of China’s reliance.  In 2009/2010, acreage equivalent domestic consumption in China exceeded 300 million acres for the first time. Currently, 10 years later, the acreage equivalent is 413 million acres. Over the last decade, China’s domestic consumption has increased by an equivalent of 100 million acres of Chinese production. 

Looking at this trend more broadly, China’s production relative to domestic consumption – considered at the acreage level – illustrates a heavy reliance on imports. Looking at individual crops, almost all of the gap is from soybeans. This is to say that China’s production of the other 12 crops has been closer to changes in domestic consumption.  Some will see China’s 124-million acreage gap as a weakness and vulnerability in light of the current Trade War.”

China wants to stop buying American soybeans entirely (https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/24/economy/china-soybeans-trade-war/index.html) 

 “China has alternative soybean sources, the biggest is Brazil, but they don't produce enough to replace its imports from the United States. "Sourcing soybeans from a bunch of trade partners is both expensive and inefficient," said Even Pay, a Beijing-based agriculture analyst at research firm China Policy. 

"Companies are looking for cheaper, alternative sources of protein." Five years ago, Beijing temporarily stopped accepting shipments of genetically modified American corn, another important animal feed, prompting Chinese farmers to buy other crops like sorghum and barley. Chinese demand for US corn never fully recovered, according to Pay. 

"Soybean imports from the US have been almost nonexistent in recent months," analysts at research firm Fitch Solutions wrote in a note to clients this week. That's largely because soybeans are typically harvested in Brazil in the first half of the year and in the United States in the last quarter, they noted. The real test will be the next few months when Brazilian supplies dry up. "China will have to import some soybeans from the US in the coming months," the Fitch analysts said, predicting it will switch back to Brazilian ones as soon as they become available again early next year.”

Global hunger for soybeans 'destroying Brazil's Cerrado savanna' (https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-46022184/global-hunger-for-soybeans-destroying-brazil-s-cerrado-savanna)

“The Cerrado savanna is an area in Brazil the same size as Western Europe.  It's one of the most biodiverse places in world - 40% of animal and plant species there can be found nowhere else on the planet. 

A report by the WWF says it is being burned and cleared at speed, with the deforestation largely driven by demand for land to grow soybeans. These are mainly exported to feed livestock, such as pigs and chickens, for consumption around the world.”

In Iowa corn fields, Chinese national's seed theft exposes vulnerability (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-seeds/in-iowa-corn-fields-chinese-nationals-seed-theft-exposes-vulnerability-idUSKCN0X80D6)

 “A U.S. law enforcement official told Reuters the agency looked for a connection between the Chinese government and the conspiracy carried out by Mo.  “In cases like this, we can see connections, but proving to the threshold needed in court requires that we have documents that the government has directed this,” the official said. “It’s almost impossible to get.”  A Chinese embassy spokesman in Washington, Zhu Haiquan, said he did not have detailed information on the Mo case but that China “stands firm” on the protection of intellectual property and maintains “constant communication and cooperation” with the U.S. government on the issue.  

On his visit to Washington last September, President Xi Jinping reiterated China’s denial of any government role in the hacking of U.S. corporate secrets.  

Mo, an employee of Chinese firm Kings Nower Seed, pleaded guilty to stealing seed grown by U.S. firms Monsanto, Dupont Pioneer and LG Seeds. Prosecutors say he specifically targeted fields that grow the parent seeds needed to replicate GMO corn.”

China has been an unreliable customer for U.S. farmers (https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2018/10/05/china-has-been-unreliable-customer-u-s-farmers/1507931002/)

“I believe free and open trade provides the best opportunities for us to prosper. But we also want our government to take the necessary actions to protect us against unfair trade practices and to stand up to violations of trade rules and abuses of our trading relationships.  China has not played fair. For all its buying power and potential, China has long been a problematic and unpredictable customer for Iowa agriculture, and for other sectors of the U.S. economy.  

There was an expectation around the world that China would conform to world trading rules when it joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. But, for many commodities, that has not happened.  Over the years China has implemented non-tariff barriers on a wide variety of products that Iowa farmers ship there, including corn, DDGs, beef and pork. The Chinese government has disrupted trade in poultry meat, grain sorghum, soybean meal and many other products. Those actions have hurt farmers, denying them potential markets and limiting income.  

The stated reason behind each of China’s tariff and non-tariff barriers has been different. But all appeared to be politically motivated to protect China’s farmers and ag processors.  A good example is China’s temporary ban on imports of U.S. corn containing a biotech trait called MIR 162. The trait, which helps plants resist insect damage without pesticides, was approved in the United States and most other countries and was originally accepted in China. 

In the late 1990s, China had become a significant importer of soybean meal. But by 2000, it virtually banned soybean meal imports in order to support the rapid development of a state-supported soybean crushing industry, causing disruptions to soybean crushers around the world and reducing opportunities for value-adding activities in the United States and other major soybean producers.  

Other than for soybeans, China has been and remains an unreliable customer for U.S. farmers that uses state trading enterprises and government policies to manipulate markets.    And now, China has targeted U.S. pork and soybeans to try to influence U.S. elections and politics.  The history of trade with China, along with today’s conflicts, highlight the danger of relying too heavily on a single market, even one with as much potential as China.”

Graphic: The world's top ten pork producers (tmsnrt.rs/2N8uNYR)

[thenewsfactsnow]

Unfair Trade Practices : Indian Govt issues a strict warning to the Ed-Tech Industry

Unfair Trade Practices : Indian Govt issues a strict warning to the Ed-Tech Industry #EdTech #EdTechIndustry #UnfairTradePractices #TradePractices #Consumers

The Indian government has issued a warning to ed-tech businesses about, unfair trade practices. The secretary of the department of consumer affairs, Shri Rohit Kumar Singh said If self-regulation fails to halt unfair business practises, stringent regulations must be put in place to ensure transparency. The self-regulatory organisation India Edtech Consortium (IEC), which is overseen by the…

[seemabhatnagar]

"Charging price over and above market rate is adoption of unfair trade practice"

Consumer Forum Matter: Prafulla Kumar Dash v. Proprietor Goyal Printing Zone District Consumer Forum, Sambalpur (Orissa) Complaint No.63/2023 Allowed on 26.09.2023

Facts: 1.     The Complainant had gone to the Xerox shop of the Opposite party for getting a page xeroxed on 28.04.2023 at 12.15 PM. 2.     After the xerox he gave Rs.5/- & asked to return Rs.3/- 3.     As the rate of photo copy is Rs. 2/- per page but the O.P. refused to return. 4.     It is alleged by the complainant that if he is charging Rs.5/- than he should have given a receipt or bill and not giving the same amounts to unfair trade practice which is adopted by the Opposite Party. 5.     It is submitted by the complainant that the behavior of the Opposite Party has caused mental agony, harassment, inconvenience apart from financial loss for which the OP is liable to compensate the Complainant. 6.     Opposite party did not file any reply to the complaint served upon him.

Observation of the Consumer Forum

1.     District Forum found that Opposite Party has not given any receipt or bill which is an unfair trade practice adopted by the OP. 2.     Also, the Opposite Party is collecting excess money per photo copy as compare to Market rate. 3.     Hence, the opposite party is deficient in service. 4.     It is an exploitation to a consumer.

Order

1.     The Opposite Party was directed to refund Rs. 3/- towards excess money received from the Complainant towards Xerox charges. 2.     Rs. 25,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

Charging Price over and above MRP is unfair & unethical business practice

Charging Price over and above MRP is not only violation of the rights of the Consumer but is also unethical & unfair business practice which is liable for penalty on the sellers.

Tarun Chaurasia v. Sunil Wine Shop

Before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum Kangra at Dharamshala

Complaint No. 185/2023

Allowed on 08.09.2023

Fact

A Complaint was filed before District Consumer Forum Kangra at Dharamshala against the proprietor of Wine shop, primarily, for declaration that the sale of wine above MRP is violation of Consumer Right and also for directing the opposite party for refunding the excess amount charged above MRP.

Averment of the Complainant in his complaint before District Forum

The payment for purchasing beer bottles and whisky were made through G Pay, for 8 Bottles of Kingfisher Ultra Rs.130/- per bottle were charged whereas MRP was Rs.85/-. Four bottles of Budweiser beer were charged for Rs.230/- whereas MRP was Rs.225/- and one bottle of Blender pride whisky was charged Rs.500/- whereas MRP was Rs.480/-. The receipts were annexed with the complaint to substantiate his averment.

Rights of Consumer

Section 2 (9) (ii) and (iii) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provisions for consumers(ii) the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, products or services, protecting the consumer against the unfair trade practices; iii) the right of the consumer to be assured, where ever possible, access to a variety of goods, products or services at competitive prices.

The norms for selling of liquor bottles had been streamlined through THE EXCISE POLICY 2023-24

As per the amended Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 effective from 2023 the retail sale price of the package shall clearly indicate that it is the maximum retail price inclusive of all taxes in Indian Currency. This will allow the manufacturer, packer and importer to declare the MRP on the pre-packed commodities in a simplified manner while at the same time safeguarding the interests of consumers.

Submission of the Opposite Party

Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, (W&M) Dharamshala has already imposed the penalty upon the opposite party that too on the complaint of present complainant, so any compensation if imposed upon opposite party will render it to be double jeopardy.

Observation of the Consumer Forum

Penalty imposed by the weights and measurement department is regarding violation of Legal Metrology rules.

The complaint before District Consumer Forum is regarding unfair trade practice for which the Consumer Redressal Forum has jurisdiction.

Consumer Protection Act is a special legislation, enacted to provide better protection for the interest of the consumers in diverse areas. The Consumer Protection Act, clearly lays down that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

The Complainant being a consumer is having a right for protection pertaining to price of goods and once the opposite party charged amount more than the MRP.

The commission is empowered under Section 39 of consumer protection act 2019 to levy just and sufficient compensation against the opposite party for committing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Direction issued by the Consumer Forum

The complainant is a tourist and has sought compensation of Rs. 25000/- which went unrebutted by the opposite party. The compensation of Rs. 25000/- is just and sufficient.

The complainant is also entitled for litigation expenses to be paid by the opposite party.

Order

The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay compensation to complainant to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.

The opposite party is also directed to discontinue the unfair trade practice forthwith.

Suggestion made to the State by the Consumer Forum

Online receipt/entry may be connected to end-to-end proposed online Excise Administration System, so as to bring transparency and protection of consumer rights regarding maintaining of quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods and products.

It be ensured that the rate list of Liquor bottles be placed in conspicuous place of every liquor vendor, the rates be depicted in bold letters in Arabic numerals/figures, and product be shown in HINDI as well as in English.

Seema Bhatnagar