Water bottle sold Rs 7 above MRP at temple shop, consumer court orders shopkeeper to pay Rs 7 lakh

A devotee visiting a temple in Andhra Pradesh paid Rs 7 more than the printed price for a bottle of water, and it has ended up costing the shop licensee Rs 7 lakh. The Kakinada district consumer commission ordered the penalty after finding that a shop inside the Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Temple at Annavaram had sold a one-litre water bottle for Rs 25 against its marked price of Rs 18, TOI reported.

The order, passed on August 28, 2026, also directed the licensee to refund the extra Rs 7, pay Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs to the devotee who filed the complaint.

How the complaint started


According to the commission's order, D Venkateswara Rao visited the temple on February 22, 2026, and bought a one-litre packaged drinking water bottle from the shop run by the temple's licensee. The bottle carried a printed MRP of Rs 18, but Rao was charged Rs 25 through UPI. When he questioned the amount, the shopkeeper reportedly told him he was authorised to sell the bottle above its MRP.

Rao then complained to the temple administration through WhatsApp, but said no action followed. He later approached the consumer commission seeking relief.

Shopkeeper's defence rejected

The shopkeeper denied charging Rs 25 for just the water bottle. He claimed Rao had also bought a Rs 20 cool drink and a Rs 5 biscuit packet, and that the Rs 25 payment covered those items along with the water.

The commission did not accept this version. It examined the UPI payment proof and a photograph of the water bottle and found they supported Rao's account. The bench, comprising President Ch. Raghupathy Vasantha Kumar along with members Chakka Susi and Chaganti Nageswara Rao, noted that the licensee had failed to produce convincing documents to back his claim about the cool drink and biscuit.

Temple administration let off

The temple management told the commission the shop was run by an independent licensee and that action had already been taken against him following earlier complaints of overcharging. The commission found no evidence that the temple administration had permitted or instructed the overcharging, and it dismissed the complaint against the temple, ordering no payment from it.

However, the commission directed the temple authorities to ensure all licensed shops display the MRP of packaged products clearly, make hourly announcements asking devotees to pay only the MRP, and maintain an effective system for handling complaints.

Why the commission called it a serious violation

The commission held that the printed MRP on a packaged product is the highest price at which it can legally be sold, and that charging more than this amount is not permitted under law. It said the shopkeeper's conduct amounted to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and also a deficiency in service.

"Such conduct squarely falls within the definition of unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as it adopts an unfair method for promoting and supplying goods by violating statutory law and misleading consumers regarding the lawful sale price," the commission said, according to TOI.

It added that the case was more serious because it occurred at a major pilgrimage centre visited by thousands of devotees daily. "Consumers purchasing essential commodities such as drinking water at such places are ordinarily left with little or no bargaining power and are compelled to purchase at the price demanded," the commission observed.

Why a refund alone was not enough

The commission said that simply directing a refund of Rs 7 would not be an adequate remedy, since the shopkeeper would still benefit from similar overcharging of other visitors if the practice continued unchecked. "If the Commission were to merely direct refund of the excess amount collected from the complainant, the opposite party would still stand to benefit from similar illegal collections made from innumerable other consumers," it said, adding that such an approach would make the legal prohibition ineffective.

The commission therefore ordered the Rs 7 lakh punitive payment to the Consumer Welfare Fund, saying it was meant to discourage repeat violations and protect consumers at public and pilgrimage places.

All directions in the order have to be carried out within 45 days. If the licensee fails to comply within this period, the outstanding amounts will attract 9 percent annual interest from the date of default until the payment is made in full.

Inputs from TOI.