Case: M/S. Indra Photographic Co. Ltd Vs. Mr. H.D. Shourie

Alleging that the appellant herein was selling the films as a representative of Kodak without price being printed on the packages containing films, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") with a prayer for the issuance of appropriate directions to protect the interests of the consumers. It was contended that the price printing on the packages was mandatory under the provisions of the Packaged Commodities Rules promulgated underthe Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The appellant put all sorts of resistances in the disposal of the complaint. Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala with prayer for setting aside the proceedings pending before the District Forum. The appellant, however opted not to file any reply to the complaint. Being satisfied that the High Courts, where the writ petitions had been filed on behalf of the appellant had not stayed the proceedings, the District Forum found that the complaint filed was in the general interests of the consumers who were entitled to know the price of the product which was required to be conspicuously displayed and if that was not done, the interests of the consumers would be jeopardised resulting in the charging of exorbitant price by the unscrupulous retailers dealing in the sale of Kodak films. Being satisfied that the action of the appellant was in violation of the rules applicable in the case, the District Forum vide its order dated February 28, 1989 directed the appellant to display the sale price of the film on the package in a manner so as not to violate the order of stay passed by the High Court where writs were pending within one month from the date of the order under intimation to the District Forum. In appeal the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the same Commission) held that it would be in the in the interest of justice for the appellant-company to (i) publish the price of the film in a national daily fortnightly; (ii) to print notice on its invoice asking the dealers to print or attach a price tag on the film before selling it to the customer, (iii) issue circulars to each dealer to print or affix a price tag on each film before selling the film to the customer and (iv) attache price tag on each unit in their own shop/outlet before it is sold to the customer.2. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission the appellant herein approached the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission who vide the order impugned dismissed the revision petition with the following observationswould however clarify that when cartons containing large numbers of film rolls are sold from their out-let on wholesale basis in an unopen condition, it would constitute sufficient compliance with the directions issued by the State Commission. If the revision petitioner affixes to each carton a sticker clearly indicating the price at which each film roll is to be sold in retail and the retailer are informed by a circular that they are not to sell the rolls at any price exceeding what is indicated on the sticker. In the event however, of the petitioner effecting retail ales from their outlet in Janpath each packet containing a single roll of film sold by them should bear a sticker showing the price of the film roll."

Court's reasoning:
We are also no impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that before is amendment on 8.8.1986, Sub-rule (2) as it then stood cast such an obligation to display the price but not thereafter. By amendment provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3) appears to have been incorporated in sub-rule (2) only by deleting sub-rule (3). The superfluous and additional words existing in sub-rule (2) before its amendment were rightly deleted in view of the specific provisions of Chapter II comprising rule 3, 4, 5 and 6 as noted herein earlier. The declares are, therefore, obliged to comply with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules notwithstanding the confusion if any conceived by them under Rule 6(2) before its amendment.7. During the course of the argument the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has shown as some packages of the Kodak films wherein the maximum retail price inclusive of all taxes has already been displayed. It is worth noticing that on those packages a specific mention is made of "not for resale outside India." It appears that the product of Kodak films, a multi-national company are being manufactured and distributed in India, thus neither the manufacturer nor the distributor or retailer can escape the liability of complying with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules.8. After examining the matter from various aspects, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the National Commission requiring interference.