1999 (8) TMI 976 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with price printing on packages.
2. Applicability of Rule 6 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.
3. Obligations under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Summary:

Non-compliance with Price Printing on Packages:
The respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi, alleging that the appellant was selling Kodak films without the price being printed on the packages, which is mandatory u/r 6 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The District Forum directed the appellant to display the sale price on the packages. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission modified the order, requiring the appellant to publish the price in a national daily fortnightly, print notices on invoices, issue circulars to dealers, and attach price tags on each unit. The National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission upheld this order with clarifications for wholesale and retail sales.

Applicability of Rule 6 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977:
The appellant contended that sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, which excludes the dealer from affixing the price on the package, was applicable. However, the court found that sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 applies to both manufacturers and dealers, emphasizing that the stress is on the package, not the person selling it. The court clarified that sub-rule (2) is in addition to the obligations under sub-rule (1), and the amendment on 8-8-1986 did not alter this obligation.

Obligations under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
The court highlighted that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was enacted to protect consumer interests, influenced by international obligations and consumer protection movements. The Act mandates a rational approach to interpreting relevant laws to achieve its objectives. The court noted that the appellant's actions were in violation of the rules and that compliance with Rule 6 was necessary to prevent retailers from charging exorbitant prices without informing consumers.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no infirmity or illegality in the order of the National Commission and dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs. The appellant is required to comply with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.