MRP related article in Times of India

In relation to my earlier post 'Law..Is it for real' here's a related article.
The Times of India dated December 6, 2006, Pune Edition published this report on Maximum Retail Price violations. Here is the text of the report.( For those who wish to read it on the website, check out the epaper edition at http://epaper.timesofindia.com/ )

One product, an MRP too many

A Bottle Of Water Can Cost Rs 10, Rs 12 Or Rs 20, Depends Where You Buy

TIMES NEWS NETWORK Pune:

Here’s news for consumers — MRP now seems to stand for ‘Multiple Retail Pricing’ instead of Maximum Retail Price!
While the Standards of weights and measures (packaged commodity) rules of 1977 prohibit a retailer from charging anything extra than the maximum retail price (MRP) printed on a packaged product, some manufacturers are selling the same product at different MRPs in different locations. Many consumers are thus feeling cheated while paying higher price for the same product in different parts of the city. While a one litre water bottle of Aquafina purchased by TOI from the Comesum restaurant at Pune railway station carried an MRP of Rs 10, another one litre Aquafina bottle purchased from the VXL ice cream parlour, outside George restaurant in Camp, had an MRP of Rs 12 printed on it. An Aquafina bottle of a lesser quantity (750ml) was being sold at an exorbitant MRP of Rs 20 at some malls and multiplexes in Pune. For example, at E-Square multiplex and Yo! China outlet at Kakade Magnum, the water bottle was being sold at an MRP of Rs 20.
Jai Dehadrai, a law student, was taken aback when he was charged Rs 20 for a bottle at the E-Square multiplex snack counter. He was surprised that the same product was being sold at an MRP of Rs 10 outside the multiplex. Driven by a deep sense of being cheated, Jai and his three friends, who had gone to the multiplex to watch a movie, had a prolonged argument with the multiplex management.
When the Yo! China salesperson was asked why a 750 ml bottle was being sold at an MRP much higher than the one litre bottle of the same brand at other places, he explained that the 750 ml product was specifically meant for places like malls and multiplexes. “There isn’t much of a difference in the quality of water sold through We barely get Rs 2 or Rs 3 per bottle sold at Rs 20 MRP,” he said.
When asked for an explanation on multiple retail pricing, Akim Bootwala, assistant manager (sales development), Pepsico India (Pune), said the company was following two different policies of applying MRP of Rs 10 per bottle for the Indian Railways and Rs 12 for open market. However, Akim was unable to explain the inconsistency in three different MRPs for the same product — Rs 20 for a 750 ml bottle sold at E-Square as against Rs 10 and Rs 12 for the one litre product of the same brand. Pepsico manager (sales) in Pune, Tanuj Chadha, was not co-operative when asked to explain the company’s multiple pricing policy and said that the company’s policy restricted him from talking to the media. the 750 ml or one litre bottle. However, there is hardly any margin for us if we are to sell these bottles at Rs 10 or Rs 12 MRP, considering that we also have to pay for the maintenance of this mall.


In another related article on the same day here's what TOI reports

Metrology officials find the MRP nut hard to crack

‘We can penalise offender only if sale price exceeds printed retail price’ Pune:

State legal metrology officials, who are responsible for keeping MRP (maximum retail price) violations under check, find themselves helpless over the multiple pricing approach by packaged product manufacturers. When TOI brought the discrepancy in MRPs for the same product at different locations to their notice, the officials said they can penalise an offender only in cases where the sale price is more than the printed MRP.
“The department has no control over what MRP the manufacturer prints on a given packaged commodity,” said D.G. Parate, deputy controller of legal metrology. Often, the department penalises offenders only if a violation is brought to its notice.
Parate said that although the department had been carrying out regular inspections to check overcharging, it has never come across such inconsistencies in printing of different MRPs for the same product.
“Our prime concern is to see whether a packaged product carries the five mandatory disclosures and whether the sale is effected as per the printed MRP,” he said.
Since April 1 this year, the department has registered only 15 offences of overcharging.
Although the Standards of Weights and Measures (packaged commodity) Rules of 1977 prohibit a retailer from charging anything extra than the maximum retail price (MRP) printed on a packaged product, this law is being flouted blatantly at many outlets in the city. At the Lohegaon airport’s main terminal, the Shubham ice-cream and juice centre was found selling a one-litre Bisleri bottled water (MRP: Rs 12) for Rs 20 without issuing a receipt. Asked the salesperson to explain the Rs 20 price, he maintained that this was the selling price for airport only. He refused to give a receipt.
The Salaam Dilli Chat outlet at the Mariplex mall, which is part of the Gold Adlabs multiplex complex in Kalyaninagar, charged an extra Rs 5 over a one-litre Aquafina bottle having Rs 12 as the MRP print. The salesperson initially refused to give a bill for this purchase, but after some insistence by a TOI reporter, gave a computer-generated bill for Rs 17. Irrespective of the Rs 12 MRP on the bottle, the bill mentioned the bottle price at Rs 15 plus a Rs 1.88 value added tax (VAT). The salesperson explained the discrepancy by maintaining that the Rs 15 price was inclusive of the service charges extended by the counter staff. This was in violation of the rules that there can be no extra charge over the printed MRP, which also includes all taxes.
In yet another serious violation, a snack counter at the E-Square multiplex sold two 330 ml Pepsi Diet cans to a TOI reporter on two separate occasions, although the can did not have any MRP and carried a printed legend: “Not for retail sale”.
After the first purchase at the Cake Khazana outlet at E-Square on November 1, the multiplex operations in-charge Gavin was asked about the questionable sale of the Pepsi Diet can. Gavin said he will have to investigate the matter before making a comment. “There might be some mix-up during the commercial activity undertaken by Pepsico. I will have to get in touch with the company and find out more details,” he said. However, the same scenario was repeated on November 23 with the E-Square counter selling a Pepsi Diet can without MRP and with a clear “Not for Retail Sale” legend. Gavin said the multiplex management was not responsible for the sale effected at the counters hired by private hotels. This was despite the computer-generated slips against such purchases being issued in ESquare’s name.
Assistant controller for legal metrology Seema S. Bais confirmed that the Diet can sale without MRP was an outright illegal activity. Asked what action was taken in such cases, she said the department can only act after effecting a transaction of its own, with witnesses and due panchanama proceedings, to ensure that an apt case is put up in court. Mere reporting of such case by an individual is not enough.