NEW DELHI: The district consumer commission in Aligarh has directed the manufacturer and a local cigarette retailer to jointly deposit Rs 10 lakh in the consumer welfare fund after a customer complained of being charged Rs 20 more than the printed price on a packet of Classic brand cigarettes.
What Was the Issue
The complainant told the commission that on January 29, 2026, he purchased a packet of Classic brand cigarettes from a shop in Aligarh. The packet had a maximum retail price (MRP) of Rs 340 printed on it, but the shopkeeper charged him Rs 360. He said he objected, but the seller refused to adjust the price, so he ended up paying the extra Rs 20 through an online transaction.
He argued that selling a product above its printed MRP was against the law and constituted an unfair trade practice. He filed a complaint against both the seller and the manufacturer, the company that produces Classic cigarettes. His demands included a refund of Rs 20 with 24 percent annual interest, Rs 10 lakh as compensation for harassment, a Rs 25 lakh penalty against the two parties under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and Rs 75,000 to cover his legal fees.
The seller did not respond to the case at all, so the commission proceeded against him ex parte. The manufacturer, however, filed a written reply denying responsibility. The company stated that it had never sold anything directly to the complainant, did not recognize the seller as an authorized dealer, and had no control over the prices charged by the seller. The manufacturer also claimed there was no proof that Rs 360 had actually been paid and asked the commission to dismiss the complaint.
What Did the Commission Say
The two-member bench, comprising President Hasnain Qureshi and Member Purnima Singh Rajpoot, held that the online payment record submitted, along with a photo of the cigarette packet, was sufficient to prove that the complainant had bought the product and paid Rs 20 above the MRP. The commission noted that the seller had "not specifically rebutted the allegations made by the complainant."
On the manufacturer's role, the commission observed that because the seller was selling a product made by the company, he had effectively become its agent, even without a formal contract. The commission said the retailer had acted as an "agent or subagent" of the manufacturer, and that the company was therefore liable for all acts done by him while selling Classic cigarettes.
"So far as the relationship of op no.1 with op no.2 is concerned, op no.2 is the seller who had sold the Classic Brand Cigarette manufactured by op no.1. Thus a relationship of manufacturer and seller of the product is established between the op no.1 and 2 and by the conduct, the op no.2 is established as agent of the op no.1. There is also other aspect of the matter wherein op no.2 stands as seller of the product supplied by the agent / distributor of the op no.1 and thus op no.2 becomes the subagent of the op no.1," the commission noted.
The commission described the overcharging as clearly black marketing or an unfair trade practice, and added that both the manufacturer and the seller were "not only liable to reimburse the complainant" but also liable to a penalty under consumer law.
The court directed the manufacturer and the seller to pay the complainant the Rs 20 he had been overcharged, with 18 percent annual interest from January 29, 2026, until the date of payment, plus Rs 5,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. It also ordered them to pay Rs 10 lakh, to be deposited in the consumer welfare fund under Section 39(1)(k) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — rather than handed to the complainant directly. The two parties were given 45 days to comply, with a warning that failure to do so could lead to prosecution.
