Stories

The Chandigarh Consumer Court held that restaurants cannot charge more than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for pre-packaged items like bottled water. It clarified that MRP already includes taxes and profit, and no extra amount can be added.

Very recently, a customer went to Ghazal Restaurant in Chandigarh, where she was charged ₹55 for a sealed bottle of “Aquafina” water, even though the MRP printed on the bottle was only ₹20. Furthermore, the restaurant added GST to the inflated price of ₹55, even though the MRP already includes all taxes. She was disappointed and filed a complaint against the restaurant, which was first dismissed by the District Consumer Commission, but she did not give up and filed an appeal before the Chandigarh State Consumer Commission.

The restaurant admitted that it charged ₹55 for a bottle of water. However, it argued that Ghazal is a well-known and respected restaurant that offers a premium atmosphere, comfort, and quality service. According to the restaurant, customers pay for the overall dining experience and not just for the product itself, so charging more was not an unfair trade practice.

The State Commission disagreed. It explained that under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) is the highest price at which a packaged product can be sold, and it already includes all taxes. The Commission clarified that when a restaurant sells a packaged item, it acts as a retailer, even if the sale happens inside the restaurant. While restaurants are free to decide the prices of the food they prepare, they cannot charge more than the MRP for packaged goods. Holding Ghazal Restaurant guilty of unfair trade practice, the Commission ordered it to refund ₹25 charged above the MRP and to pay ₹3,000 as compensation to the complainant.

If you have purchased a product or service and are not happy with the outcome, Voxya helps you take effective legal action against brands, all from the comfort and safety of your home.

File a complaint now

If you’re looking to hire a lawyer to file your case, click the given link – https://voxya.com/service/consumer-court-case

Very recently, a Chennai-based advocate couple filed a complaint against the Leela Palace Hotel, Udaipur, after booking a one-day stay at the hotel on January 26, 2025, for an amount of ₹55,500.

The complainant alleged that during their hotel stay, a housekeeping staff used a master key and suddenly enter their room while she and her husband were inside the washroom. Even after the couple shouted “no service,” the staff member still entered the room and allegedly peeped through a broken washroom door. This incident caused the couple severe mental stress and discomfort.

The couple immediately informed the hotel reception about what happened, but the hotel did not take quick or proper action. Being aggrieved by the situation, they filed a case against the hotel in the Chennai Consumer Commission.

In its defence, the hotel manager claimed that there was no “Do Not Disturb” sign on the door and that the housekeeping staff followed internal rules by ringing the doorbell before entering.

However, the Commission did not accept this explanation. It observed that the staff member entered the room within less than a minute of ringing the doorbell, which was unreasonable, especially when the washroom was clearly in use. The Commission said the staff should have first checked with the reception to confirm whether the room was occupied. It also pointed out that the hotel failed to submit its standard operating procedures, raising doubts about staff training and basic conduct. The delay in providing CCTV footage and the fact that the camera outside the room was not working further weakened the hotel’s case.

The Commission held that allowing staff to enter an occupied room was a serious failure in service and a clear violation of the guests’ privacy. As a result, the hotel was ordered to refund the room charge of ₹55,000 with 9% interest from January 26, 2025, pay ₹10 lakh as compensation, and ₹10,000 towards legal costs, within two months.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible. If you are looking for a solution to your complaints then file a complaint now!

If you are looking for legal advice for a consumer case then you can Talk To A Lawyer Now!

The complainant had purchased a HP laptop from Infiniti Retail Ltd. during the COVID-19 period, for the amount of ₹40,488, with a two year warranty. He bought the laptop for academic purposes, as her MBA classes were being conducted online during the COVID-19 period, but within a week of purchase, his laptop started showing performance issues relating to the Windows operating system and web browsers. He filed a complaint against the HP-authorised service centre, where his laptop complaint was temporarily resolved.

However, within two months of purchase, the issue arose again and the screen turned black. Upon inspection at the authorized service centre, it was determined that the laptop’s motherboard had become defective and required replacement. The complainant asked for a replacement, but HP Pvt. Ltd. refused her request. Upset by the repeated problems and the company’s refusal to replace or refund the laptop—even after she sent a legal notice—she approached the Chandigarh Consumer Court.

In response, Infiniti Retail said it was only the seller and should not be blamed for any manufacturing fault. HP argued that under the warranty, the laptop did not qualify for a refund or replacement and that the issue could be fixed by changing the motherboard.

After reviewing all the records, the Commission did not accept these explanations. It pointed out that the motherboard is one of the most important parts of a laptop, and if it fails within just a few months of purchase, it clearly shows a serious defect.

The Commission also said that a customer cannot be expected to keep repairing a brand-new product that is still under warranty. Because of this, it ruled that the companies had provided poor service and followed unfair practices.

As a result, the Commission ordered them to return ₹40,488 to the complainant with 9% interest, and also pay ₹10,000 for the trouble and legal costs she had to bear.

If you have purchased a product or service and are not happy with the outcome, Voxya helps you take effective legal action against brands, all from the comfort and safety of your home.

File a complaint now

A complaint was filed by the Mrs. Sarmila Sharma against Kotak Mahindra Bank for rendering wrong service to a customer by selling his gold without proper permission.

The case was filed by Mrs. Sarmila Sharma, who took a gold loan of ₹77,000 in 2020 to build her house. She gave 35.90 grams of gold jewellery as security for the loan. As per the complainant, she received a letter informing her that failure to pay interest of ₹3,260 would result in sale or auction of the pledged jewellery. The complainant paid the said interest amount on the very same date. Despite this, the Bank allegedly auctioned the pledged gold ornaments. Aggrieved by this uninformed action, she filed a gold loan complaint in Delhi district consumer court.

The District Commission said the bank did not reply to the complaint or explain its actions. The Commission ordered the bank to pay Mrs. Sharma the current market value of her gold after adjusting any remaining loan amount.

Kotak Mahindra Bank filed an appeal before the State Commission. The Bank argued that the complainant had accepted the terms and conditions of the loan. It was further contended that the auction was conducted in accordance with law and that, after adjustment of dues, an excess amount of ₹9,357.17 remained, which the complainant was asked to collect.

Agreed with the decision of the District Commission, the State Commission held that the Bank’s action was a deficiency in service. Therefore, finding no illegality or infirmity in the order, the Commission dismissed the appeal filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and upheld the directions issued by the District Commission.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible. If you are looking for a solution to your complaints then file a complaint now!

If you are looking for legal advice for a consumer case then you can Talk To A Lawyer Now!