Cigarette manufacturer, retailer fined Rs 10 lakh for selling pack Rs 20 above MRP

5 min readNew DelhiJun 18, 2026 06:00 AM IST

It was alleged that though the packet carried an MRP of Rs 340, the retailer charged Rs 360.

(Image generated using AI)

The Aligarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a cigarette manufacturing company and a local cigarette seller to deposit Rs 10 lakh in the consumer welfare fund after holding them guilty of unfair trade practice for overcharging Rs 20 on a packet of cigarettes.

A bench of president Hasnain Qureshi and member Purnima Singh Rajpoot held that the seller had adopted unfair trade practice while selling the cigarettes manufactured by the company and that the company was liable for the acts of the seller.

“We hereby direct the ops to pay the complainant the amount Rs 20 with interest 18% per annum…and Rs. 5000 for compensation with litigation expenses Rs 5000. Ops are also directed to pay a sum amounting Rs 10 lakh under section 39(1) k of the Act, 2019 that shall be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund,” the order dated June 15 read.

Charged Rs 20 extra

According to the complaint, the complainant had purchased a packet of Classic brand cigarettes from the seller in Aligarh on January 29, 2026.

It was alleged that though the packet carried an MRP of Rs 340, the retailer charged Rs 360.

The complainant paid the amount through an online transaction after protesting against the overcharge and later approached the consumer commission.

He argued that the seller had charged the excess amount of Rs 20 to get an undue profit, which is against the law and is an unfair trade practice.

He submitted that by overcharging, the seller had committed a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in the sale of cigarettes.

The retailer failed to appear before the commission and the matter proceeded ex parte against him.

The manufacturing company, in its written statement, denied liability, arguing that it had not sold the cigarettes directly to the complainant.

It was further submitted that it did not recognise the retailer as its authorised vendor, and had no knowledge of the alleged overcharging.

It denied indulging in any black marketing or unfair trade practice. It also questioned the complainant’s status as a consumer vis-à-vis the company.

Rs 10 lakh cost

The commission held that the evidence, including the online payment record and photographs of the cigarette pack, established that the complainant had purchased the cigarettes manufactured by the company and had been charged above the printed MRP.

The commission observed that selling a product above its MRP amounted to black marketing and an unfair trade practice.

It further held that the manufacturer was liable for the acts of the retailer, describing the latter as an agent or sub-agent engaged in selling the manufacturer’s products.

“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,” the order read.

Story continues below this ad

The bench noted that charging consumers above the printed price was not only detrimental to the complainant but also affected members of the public at large who may have been overcharged but remained unidentified.

“Op no.2 has adopted unfair trade practice in selling the Classic Brand Cigarettes manufactured by op no.1 and op no.1 is liable for the acts committed by op no 2 whereby complainant had suffered loss and harassment and it is also the conduct of the op no.2 in selling the Classic Brand Cigarettes to the Public at large who had suffered loss and they are not identifiable,” the commission noted.

The commission directed the opposite parties to refund Rs 20 with 18 per cent interest from January 29, 2026, till the date of payment and pay Rs 5000 as compensation and litigation expenses amounting to Rs 5000.

Invoking Section 39(1)(k) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the commission directed the opposite parties to deposit Rs 10 lakh in the Consumer Welfare Fund in addition to compensating the complainant.

Story continues below this ad

Why this judgment matters?

The decision sends a strong message that even small instances of overcharging can attract significant consequences under the Consumer Protection Act when they reflect an unfair trade practice affecting the wider public.

By invoking Section 39(1)(k) and directing a Rs 10 lakh deposit into the Consumer Welfare Fund, the commission emphasised that consumer forums can impose remedies aimed not just at compensating an individual complainant but also at protecting the interests of unidentified consumers who may have suffered similar harm.

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