Five NLSIU (National Law School of India University, Bangalore) students have filed a complaint at the Consumer Forum against Pepsi..The complaint pertains to the practice of marking higher MRPs (Maximum Retail Price) by Pepsi for sale in some channels. An earlier practice referred to vendors charging above the MRP, but this complaint highlights to the practice of Pepsi bottles (bought at a food court in Bangalore) not mentioning “for select channels only”..The complainants are Adithya Banavar, Abhimanyu Kampani and Aubrey Lyngdoh presently in their final year, and Lakshmi Nair and Ashwini Obulesh currently in the third year of the five year law course..Ashwini Obulesh (complainant) argued for the admission of the complaint at the Consumer Forum. The consumer complaint was filed on behalf of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs Chair on Consumer Law & Practice (presently held by Prof. Ashok Patil) in association with the Legal Services Clinic of NLSIU. The opposite parties comprise of Palette Mantri Mall Square (Bangalore, Karnataka), Aradhana Foods and Juices (Andhra Pradesh), Pepsi India Holdings Private Limited (Maharashtra) and Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited (Karnataka)..Speaking to Bar & Bench on the complaint filed, Ashwini said, “The students of NLSIU filed this complaint in public interest, seeking an order to cease the unfair trade practices carried out by Pepsi. Earlier, they used to mark unreasonably above the MRP, now they have manipulated the MRP itself. Also none of the bottles contain a message saying ‘for select channels only’..Complaint: The complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1985 and addresses to the student-complainants episode at Palette Mantri Mall, Bangalore. The students (complainants) purchased one, 1-litre water bottle of Aquafina, a 330 ml Pepsi Tin and a 350 ml bottle of Nimbooz at Palette Mantri Mall. The total bill amount for the above purchases of Pepsi products was Rs. 120 and the vendor informed the students (complainants) that he has billed the MRP rates. The students (complainants) then bought the same goods at Food World and the total bill came to Rs. 55 with a big difference of Rs. 65..The students (complainants) observed that the MRPs marked at Palette Mantri Mall differed from the MRPs marked on identical products purchased at Food World. Not only were identical products being sold with varying MRPs, but also, such variations might have been practiced at the manufacturer’s level..Pepsi’s Response: Pepsi India Holdings and Pepsico India Holdings responded via email stating that admittedly, the manufacturer had marked two different MRPs on identical products, ostensibly to cover service charges of the outlet..A copy of the complaint is available here.
Five NLSIU (National Law School of India University, Bangalore) students have filed a complaint at the Consumer Forum against Pepsi..The complaint pertains to the practice of marking higher MRPs (Maximum Retail Price) by Pepsi for sale in some channels. An earlier practice referred to vendors charging above the MRP, but this complaint highlights to the practice of Pepsi bottles (bought at a food court in Bangalore) not mentioning “for select channels only”..The complainants are Adithya Banavar, Abhimanyu Kampani and Aubrey Lyngdoh presently in their final year, and Lakshmi Nair and Ashwini Obulesh currently in the third year of the five year law course..Ashwini Obulesh (complainant) argued for the admission of the complaint at the Consumer Forum. The consumer complaint was filed on behalf of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs Chair on Consumer Law & Practice (presently held by Prof. Ashok Patil) in association with the Legal Services Clinic of NLSIU. The opposite parties comprise of Palette Mantri Mall Square (Bangalore, Karnataka), Aradhana Foods and Juices (Andhra Pradesh), Pepsi India Holdings Private Limited (Maharashtra) and Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited (Karnataka)..Speaking to Bar & Bench on the complaint filed, Ashwini said, “The students of NLSIU filed this complaint in public interest, seeking an order to cease the unfair trade practices carried out by Pepsi. Earlier, they used to mark unreasonably above the MRP, now they have manipulated the MRP itself. Also none of the bottles contain a message saying ‘for select channels only’..Complaint: The complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1985 and addresses to the student-complainants episode at Palette Mantri Mall, Bangalore. The students (complainants) purchased one, 1-litre water bottle of Aquafina, a 330 ml Pepsi Tin and a 350 ml bottle of Nimbooz at Palette Mantri Mall. The total bill amount for the above purchases of Pepsi products was Rs. 120 and the vendor informed the students (complainants) that he has billed the MRP rates. The students (complainants) then bought the same goods at Food World and the total bill came to Rs. 55 with a big difference of Rs. 65..The students (complainants) observed that the MRPs marked at Palette Mantri Mall differed from the MRPs marked on identical products purchased at Food World. Not only were identical products being sold with varying MRPs, but also, such variations might have been practiced at the manufacturer’s level..Pepsi’s Response: Pepsi India Holdings and Pepsico India Holdings responded via email stating that admittedly, the manufacturer had marked two different MRPs on identical products, ostensibly to cover service charges of the outlet..A copy of the complaint is available here.
