Forced to pay Rs 80 extra for 2 whisky bottles, man awarded Rs 6,000 compensation

4 min readNew DelhiJun 16, 2026 08:00 AM IST

The retailer argued that liquor prices were determined by the Telangana State Beverages Corporation Limited and licensed outlets had to sell products at the price fixed by it. (AI-generated image)

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, has directed Spencer’s Retail to pay Rs 6,000 for overcharging a customer by a total of Rs 80 on two whisky bottles.

A bench of president B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi, and members C Lakshmi Prasanna and V Janardhan Reddy observed that collecting more than the printed Maximum Retail Price (MRP) amounts to an unfair trade practice.

“Whereas the opposite party No.1 has collected Rs 1040 which clearly shows that the OP has collected the price of the bottle was more than MRP which amounts to unfair trade practice,” the bench noted in its order dated May 29.

Charged Rs 80 extra

The case was filed by a man who purchased two bottles of Oaksmith International Blended Whisky (750 ml each) from a Spencer’s outlet on June 4, 2025.

According to the complaint, the bottles carried a printed MRP of Rs 1,000 each, inclusive of all taxes, but he was charged Rs 1,040 per bottle, resulting in an excess payment of Rs 80.

When he questioned the discrepancy, store staff allegedly told him that prices had been revised, but the new rates had not yet been printed on the bottles.

Alleging that the collection of an excess amount more than the MRP amounts to unfair trade practice, the complainant moved the consumer forum.

In its reply, Spencer’s defended the pricing and denied the allegations, contending that the rates of the liquor were revised by additional excise duty vide a notification.

It was further submitted that the said notification imposes an additional cess of Rs 10 per 180 ml bottle with proportionate rates of Rs 20 for half bottles and Rs 40 for full bottles applicable to all categories of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), Foreign Liquor (FL), ordinary liquor, ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages and beer.

The retailer argued that liquor prices were determined and managed exclusively by the Telangana State Beverages Corporation Limited (TGBCL) and that licensed outlets were bound to sell products at the barcode-scanned price fixed by the corporation.

It maintained that it had no authority to independently alter prices and therefore could not be held responsible for the alleged overcharging, as the rates are system-driven and central managed by the corporation.

‘Unfair trade practice’

The commission, however, found that the bottles clearly displayed an MRP of Rs 1,000 while the bill showed that the consumer had been charged Rs 1,040 per bottle.

The commission held that collecting an amount higher than the declared MRP constituted an unfair trade practice.

The commission noted that it is not only in violation of the notification but also charging an excess price over the declared MRP on the package violates the provisions contemplated under the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.

Allowing the complaint in part, the commission directed Spencer’s to refund the excess Rs 80 collected from the consumer.

It also awarded Rs 5,000 as compensation and Rs 1,000 towards litigation costs.

Charged Rs 10 extra

In another case, a Kerala consumer commission has directed the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (KSBC) to pay Rs 25,000 in compensation and costs to a customer after finding that it charged Rs 10 more than the MRP printed on a beer bottle.

The order passed by a bench comprising president George Baby and member Nishad Thankappan noted that charging excess MRP constitutes ‘unfair trade practice‘ and ‘deficiency in service’.

“Charging excess of MRP by opposite party constitutes “unfair trade practice” and “deficiency in service” as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in our considered view adequate compensation should be levied on the opposite party to change this trend,” the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta noted in its order dated June 3.

Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience.

Expertise

Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents.

Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes:

Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity.

Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes:

Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law.

Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates.

Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More

Tags:

consumer court

Hyderabad

retail prices

whisky