1 day ago
Andhra Temple Shop Fined ₹7 Lakh Over ₹7 Water Charge
A devotee bought a one-litre water bottle from a temple shop.
The bottle said its maximum price was ₹18.
The shop charged him ₹25 instead.
He complained to the consumer commission.
The commission said sellers cannot charge more than the printed maximum price.
It called the extra charge an unfair trade practice.
The shop licensee must pay ₹7 lakh to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
The devotee must also receive a refund, compensation, and money for legal expenses.
Temple authorities were told to check prices at other licensed shops.
A devotee said a temple shop charged ₹25 for a one-litre water bottle marked with an ₹18 MRP.
The ₹7 excess charge was paid through UPI, according to the complaint.
The Kakinada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission called the practice an unfair trade practice and a deficiency in service.
The shop licensee was ordered to deposit ₹7 lakh with the Consumer Welfare Fund.
The licensee must refund ₹7, pay ₹10,000 compensation, and cover ₹5,000 in litigation costs within 45 days.
- Who
- Devotee D Venkateswara Rao, the temple shop licensee, and the Kakinada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- What
- A temple shop was ordered to pay ₹7 lakh after allegedly charging ₹25 for a water bottle marked with an ₹18 MRP.
- Where
- At a temple shop in Kakinada district, Andhra Pradesh.
- When
- The commission passed its order on August 28, 2026; compliance is required within 45 days.
- Why
- The commission found that charging above the printed MRP was an unfair trade practice and a deficiency in service, and said the penalty would discourage similar conduct.
Key facts
- Bottle MRP
- ₹18 for one litre
- Amount charged
- ₹25, paid through UPI
- Excess collection
- ₹7
- Punitive damages
- ₹7 lakh to the Consumer Welfare Fund
- Consumer compensation
- ₹10,000, plus ₹5,000 for litigation expenses
- Compliance period
- 45 days
- Late-payment interest
- 9% per annum from the date of default
Quotes
Kakinada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Consumer dispute commission that adjudicated the complaint
“Such conduct squarely falls within the definition of unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019,”
businesstoday.in
Sources
Related news
Andhra Commission Orders Rs 7 Lakh Damages Over Water Overcharge
Delhi Woman Wins Compensation After Bra Overcharging Dispute
Hyderabad Consumer Forum Rejects Rs 4 Crore Bag Claim
Himachal Consumer Commission Orders Retailer to Pay Rs 8,010
Himachal Commission Orders HRTC to Pay ₹50,029 Over Fare
Ernakulam Commission Penalizes Retailer Over Misleading Onam Offer
Onion wholesale prices fall 9 percent over nine days
Punjab Rice Mills Face Storage Crunch as CMR Deadline Extended
CPI Seeks Probe, Cancellation of Bal Sanjeevani Tenders
