Five NLSIU Bangalore students with their Legal Services Clinic have filed a consumer complaint against Pepsi Co alleging “unfair trade practice” and “cheating” for higher and varied maximum retail prices (MRP) on beverages.
Adithya Banavar, Abhimanyu Kampani, Aubrey Lyngdoh, Lakshmi Nair and Ashwini Obulesh managed to get their complainant admitted before the district consumer forum in Bangalore against the company after they were sold a mineral water bottle and a couple of other beverages at higher retail cost on the pretext of charging a rate inclusive of service tax applicable at the selling outlet.
“The differential marking of MRPs is not only an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, but also defeats the very purpose of requiring a manufacturer to mark an MRP on the product,” the students submitted. “It also leads to cheating of consumers who are unaware of the differential marking of MRPs.”
Ashwini Obulesh told Legally India: “This complaint is in the public interest and we are not asking for damages alone, but want the unfair practice, which is rampantly happening, to cease.”
The complaint was filed in October last year with financial assistance coming from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs Chair on Consumer Law & Practice at NLSIU, which is currently held by Prof Ashok Patil. Three of the complainant students had been members of the law school’s Legal Services Committee, said Obulesh.
The initial arguments for admission were rendered by Obulesh but they may later seek a qualified lawyer’s assistance in the case if necessary. The next hearing will be on 22 February 2011 when the opposite parties are expected to register appearances.
To date the complainants have only received an emailed response to their legal notice from two of the opposite parties namely, Pepsi Co and Aradhana Foods and Juices, said Obulesh.
Photo by mike9alive
Comments
This is not cool. Sadly.
True, many similar cases of charging price above MRP have already decided by consumer courts all over India, yet something noteworthy done by law students must be reported by LI like your story on Brajesh Rajak's book.
Similarly, as mentioned in my friend's post above, if law students/teachers have helped farmers rescuing from land mafia or a remarkable RTI application by a law student...that all should be reported, of course selectively.
Just becuase someone else didn't get credit does not mean credit should never be given when due in other cases in the interest of parity!... Your conception of "equal treatment" is quite warped.
I got into NLS and chose not to go there.
With regard to the news:
I am sure almost every nlu's LSC is doing a great job, but this matter affects 45% of India's population. I think its definitely worth mentioning.
But yes, I do think that something on what other LSCs are upto will surely make a good read.
Unfortunately, however much we'd like to be, we are nowhere near omniscient so please do let us know about some of the work you do and we will try to publish it looks like it'd be interesting.
Best,
Kian
I'm not going into whether this news is publishable or not. It is LI's discretion to publish and the reader's discretion to read. as simple as that. im not even an NLS student. Im from NUJS and personally I read the news and found it intriguing. :-)
Good luck to the students.
I think it might be a big thing for NLS, Bangalore but we have been doing such acts from the time we were in our 1st years..
so i dont think it need to published n such a manner that LI has done ..
I would like to congratulate the NLS students who filed the case, many of us know that there are irregularities relating to MRP and the whole service tax story which we are fed at the upmarket outlets, but very few of us actually take step to remedy the situation. So kudos again to the complainants.
Their argument, now under the guise of service tax, is the customer is paying for the "ambience" etc, and not only for the beverage.
Therefore a customer has to shell out more than the MRP for a branded bottle of mineral water, if that is bought in a multiplex, a food court mall or five star hotel and other fancy establishments.
How far this is legit and legally permissible is open to question - and the NLS guys have once again turned the spotlight on this issue (MRPs loses its relevance if retail outlets are allowed to charge higher on some pretext).
Regarding relevance of this...well, it is a middle class issue. In these inflation-hit times one call hardly expect the aam admni to consume mineral water - what the heck hundreds of millions in our country can't get a decent glass of safe drinking water.
"Let them eat cake", retort of the French royalty to the starving masses comes to mind. I think aam admni would have been better served if the LSC had done some pro bono work relating to title deeds of the the poor farmer's modest piece of land or dwelling or a village labourer's entitlements under NREGA, etc.
If you want to be competitive why not focus on making yourselves look better instead of trying to put other people down?
Sick.
I have no idea why this is being publicised so much as LSC has so many better ongoing programs on its plate.
@world at large:
It is important to note that three of the five involved are 5th years. Now what I really want to see is whether my respected seniors despite getting into their cushy jobs will stick with this after they pass out because there is no way this is going to get disposed off in the next trimester (3 months). Prove to me: your junior, that this wasn't some cheapass publicity gig. Earn your respect.
Furthermore, admission is a simple business.
you just should have bought a coke (voila you're a consumer) within the last 2 years (voila no limitation issues) and approach the right forum (jurisdiction done too), THAT is ALL Admission is.
-NLSIU
Dude... how bitter are you?
Everyone who feels that this is trivial as compared to a fight for farmer's rights or a well directed RTI petition should be aware of the fact that the point of news is not simply to inform, and stop with that, but also to promote awareness in a way. Merely because the human interest angle would be higher in a petition filed on behalf of the farmers or the poor would be greater does not denigrate the newsworth of this piece. Especially articles which taklk about social initiatives of students, no matter how important they are should be given publicity so that more people who are interested will know of someone who did this before them, possibly bring like minded people together, assist in networking, and a number of other benefits. It could even lead to law students discussing the legal viability of the complaint, which would normally be a much more constructive discourse. Judging what sort of social initiative is worthy or not is tawdry and pointless and only tries to cheapen the little that others do try. Publish as much as possible about these matters, I dont think anyone has a problem with space on the net. But even entering into this sort of debate is simply reflective of a burning resentment against those who do attempt to make a difference
dare and publish it
Haha. Bamboo.
I'm sure several people get quite annoyed when they have to pay extra at a movie hall for the "same" bottle of coke, but one would think that a consumer complaint by NLS students would reflect more than just this annoyance, or "mental agony", and would actually involve some work.
Does differential MRP really defeat the purpose of having an MRP (which, as per the Weights and Measures Act, is to ensure that retailers don't cheat consumers)? I would think it furthers the broader purpose (of consumer welfare) because, economically speaking, allowing price discrimination creates the possibility of multiple equilibria.
@Kian: Love your comment at #5, and could you please keep us posted on where this complaint goes on the 22nd? I'm sure one of these five will let you know, so let us know too. Thanks
Since you have commented so much on the lack of analysis, one would expect you to understand that the very concept of a maximum retail price is that it is the 'maximum' one can charge. You are allowed to have differential pricing as long as it is below the MRP.
How insightful. Maybe you should have helped write the complaint.
You do, however, make 2 errors. one, if MRP was of no significance, and people regularly charged below it, then differential MRP would not be such an issue would it?
And two, if MRP is significant, then isn't it a good thing that Pepsi makes sure that the retailer can only charge 20 rupees for a bottle of pepsi. Essentially, why do you assume that the one MRP would lead to the lower MRP being charged?