Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the   District Forum, Jaipur 4th dated 18.4.2016 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant.

The contention of the appellant is that he has not only sold the beer to the consumer but consumer has also availed ambience and facility of the hotel and it is not a case of simple sale or purchase hence, the claim should not have been allowed.

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that after enactment of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities ) Rules 2011 the appellant were not competent for sale of beer Haywards 500 in retail package on the price more than that printed on the commodity so packed. Hence, the claim has rightly been allowed.

The appellant has further relied upon AIR 2007 Delhi 137 The Federation of Hotels and Restaurant Association of India Vs. Union of India , (2009) ILR 5 Delhi 625 Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. Vs. Union of India where in the light of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 the controversy was dealt with but now there cannot be any dispute about the fact that the packaged material would govern by the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities ) Rules 2011 and as per definition 2 (k) retail package means the packages which are   intended for retail sale to the ultimate consumer for the purpose of consumption of the commodity contained therein. Retail sale has also been defined in rule 2 (l) and retail sale price has also been defined in rule 2 (m) which reads as under:

The respondent has further relied upon judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2038/2015 Big Cinemas Vs. Manoj Kumar where also maximum retail price defined in the rules is interpreted and it has been held that it is mandatory to mark maximum retail price on all packaged commodities.

The other contention of the appellant is that Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities)Rules 2011 are not applicable to him as he is institutional consumer and reference has been made to the definition provided u/s 2 (bc) but here in the present case the appellant is in the capacity of service provider by any stretch of imagination he cannot be said to be a consumer hence, the contention is not at all appreciated.