Paid ₹20 above MRP for cigarettes? This customer took it to court and won a ₹10 lakh order

A district consumer commission in Uttar Pradesh's Aligarh has ordered a cigarette manufacturer and a local retailer to jointly deposit ₹10 lakh into the Consumer Welfare Fund after a customer was charged ₹20 more than the printed maximum retail price (MRP) of a cigarette packet, according to a report by Times of India. 

The commission also directed the two parties to refund the excess amount with interest and pay compensation and litigation costs to the complainant.

Customer says he was charged above MRP

According to the complaint, the customer purchased a packet of Classic brand cigarettes from a shop in Aligarh on January 29, 2026. While the packet carried an MRP of ₹340, the retailer allegedly charged him ₹360.

Don't Miss: After UK and Australia, this Arab country bans social media for children. What's driving the crackdown?

The complainant told the commission that he objected to the higher price, but the shopkeeper refused to reduce it. He eventually paid the extra ₹20 through an online transaction.

Arguing that selling a product above its printed MRP was illegal and amounted to an unfair trade practice, he approached the consumer commission.

In his complaint, he sought a refund of ₹20 with 24 per cent annual interest, ₹10 lakh as compensation for harassment, a ₹25 lakh penalty against the manufacturer and seller under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and ₹75,000 towards legal expenses.

Manufacturer denies responsibility

The retailer did not respond to the proceedings, prompting the commission to continue the case without hearing his side.

The manufacturer, however, contested the complaint. The company argued that it had never sold the product directly to the complainant and did not recognise the retailer as its authorised dealer. It also maintained that it had no control over the price charged by the seller and questioned whether the complainant had actually paid ₹360.

The company requested that the complaint be dismissed.

Commission accepts evidence

The two-member bench comprising President Hasnain Qureshi and Member Purnima Singh Rajpoot held that the online payment record and a photograph of the cigarette packet were sufficient to establish that the complainant had purchased the product and paid ₹20 above the MRP.

The commission noted that the seller had "not specifically rebutted the allegations made by the complainant."

Manufacturer held liable for retailer's actions

While examining the manufacturer's role, the commission observed that the retailer was selling a product made by the company and therefore acted as its agent, even in the absence of a formal agreement.

"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 There is also other aspect of the matter wherein op no.2 stands as seller of the product supplied by the agent/distributor of the op no.1 and thus op no.2 becomes the subagent of the op no.1," the commission noted.

The commission further described the overcharging as clearly black marketing or an unfair trade practice and said that both parties were liable under consumer law.

What the commission ordered

The commission directed the manufacturer and the retailer to jointly pay the complainant the ₹20 excess amount charged, along with 18 per cent annual interest from January 29, 2026, until the date of payment.

It also awarded ₹5,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.

In addition, the commission ordered the manufacturer and retailer to deposit ₹10 lakh into the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 39(1)(k) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Both parties have been given 45 days to comply with the order. The commission warned that failure to do so could lead to prosecution.