State commission upholds finding of unfair trade practice but cuts compensation for mental agony from Rs 10,000 to Rs 500
The Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Reliance Retail to pay Rs 5,501.80 to a Jaipur consumer after holding that the retailer’s failure to extend an advertised discount amounted to an unfair trade practice. While upholding the earlier ruling in favour of the consumer, the commission reduced the compensation awarded for mental agony.
The order was passed by a bench comprising judicial member Mukesh and member Raminivas Saraswat while deciding an appeal filed by Reliance Retail against a March 18, 2025, order of the Jaipur II District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The state commission agreed with the district commission’s conclusion that the retailer had indulged in an unfair trade practice. However, it modified the compensation for mental agony, reducing it from Rs 10,000 to Rs 500 after observing that the earlier amount was excessive considering the facts of the case.
The dispute arose from Reliance Retail’s New Year promotional campaign, which ran between January 3 and February 10, 2021. Jaipur resident Virendra Singh alleged that despite promotional advertisements offering discounts across Reliance stores, he was charged the full price for a packet of Patanjali biscuits purchased on January 7, 2021.
According to the complaint, Singh bought grocery items worth Rs 276.50 from a Reliance Retail outlet. On checking the bill, he found that a packet of Patanjali biscuits carrying a maximum retail price (MRP) of Rs 30 had been billed at the full price, although the promotional material advertised a 6 per cent discount on the product.
Had the discount been applied, the biscuits would have cost Rs 28.20, resulting in a difference of Rs 1.80. Singh alleged that the retailer declined to refund the excess amount, following which he approached the consumer forum.
Reliance Retail contested the complaint, arguing that the Patanjali biscuits purchased by Singh were not covered under the promotional offer. The company also maintained that the consumer had not objected to the billing at the store and therefore no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice had occurred.
In its appeal before the state commission, the retailer further argued that awarding Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental agony over an alleged excess charge of Rs 1.80 was disproportionate.
The state commission rejected the company’s arguments, noting that Reliance Retail had neither specifically denied the existence of the advertised 6 per cent discount in its written submissions nor produced any material to establish that Patanjali biscuits were excluded from the scheme.
The commission observed that the consumer had submitted photographs and promotional material showing the advertised discount. Since the retailer failed to prove that the product was outside the offer, the commission held that Singh had been induced to make the purchase based on the promotional campaign and was wrongly denied the promised discount.
While affirming the finding of unfair trade practice, the commission said there was no fixed formula for determining compensation for mental agony and held that the earlier award of Rs 10,000 was excessive in relation to the dispute. It accordingly reduced the amount to Rs 500.
However, the commission retained the directions requiring Reliance Retail to refund the excess amount of Rs 1.80 and pay Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses, taking the total amount payable to the consumer to Rs 5,501.80.
