Water Bottle Sold Above MRP: Kakinada Consumer Commission Imposes Rs 7 Lakh Penalty

A consumer commission in Andhra Pradesh has ordered a shop at the Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Temple in Annavaram to pay Rs 7 lakh as punitive damages after finding that it charged a devotee Rs 25 for a one-litre packaged drinking water bottle carrying an MRP of Rs 18.

The Kakinada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission also directed the shop to refund the excess Rs 7, pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to the complainant, and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. The order was passed on August 28, 2026.

Commission Finds Shop Charged Above MRP

The case relates to an incident on February 22, 2026 when D. Venkateswara Rao visited the temple and purchased a one-litre packaged drinking water bottle from M/s Satya Deva Fancy, Coconuts & Cool Drinks, a licensed shop operating on the temple premises.

According to the complaint, the bottle carried an MRP of Rs 18, but the shop collected Rs 25 through Unified Payments Interface (UPI). The shop denied illegally charging the customer and claimed that the Rs 25 payment was for a Rs 20 cool drink and a Rs 5 biscuit packet, rather than the water bottle.

The commission did not accept this explanation. It considered the UPI payment proof, a copy of the water bottle showing its printed MRP and video recordings submitted by the complainant. The shop did not produce electronic billing records or CCTV footage to support its version, despite the commission noting that such evidence was within its possession.

The commission also noted that proceedings had been initiated against the shop previously over complaints of overcharging.

What Did The Commission Observe

The commission observed, “The Maximum Retail Price printed on a packaged commodity represents the highest price at which such commodity can legally be sold to a consumer. Collection of any amount beyond the printed MRP is prohibited by the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and constitutes an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.”

It further held that the conduct amounted to deficiency in service. The commission noted that the incident took place at a major pilgrimage centre where thousands of devotees visit, and consumers purchasing essential items, such as drinking water may have limited bargaining power.

The commission dismissed the complaint against the temple’s executive officer, noting there was no evidence that the administration had authorised or encouraged the shop to charge above MRP. However, it directed the temple administration to ensure that all licensed shops prominently display MRP and make hourly announcements asking devotees not to pay more than the printed price. It also directed the administration to maintain an effective complaint mechanism.

The shop was ordered to pay Rs 7 lakh as punitive damages to the Consumer Welfare Fund, apart from refunding Rs 7 to the complainant, paying Rs 10,000 compensation and Rs 5,000 in litigation costs. The order is to be complied within 45 days, failing which the monetary amounts will carry an interest at 9 per cent per annum.