http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: M/S INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC CO. LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: H.D. SHOURIE

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/08/1999

BENCH: R.P.Sethi, S.Saghir Ahmed

JUDGMENT:

SETHI,J.

     Alleging  that  the appellant herein was  selling  the films  as  a  representative of Kodak  without  price  being printed  on  the packages containing films,  the  respondent filed  a  complaint  before the District  Consumer  Disputes Redressal  Forum,  Delhi  (hereinafter referred to  as  ‘the District  Forum’)  with  a  prayer   for  the  issuance   of appropriate  directions  to  protect the  interests  of  the consumers.   It was contended that the price printing on the packages  was mandatory under the provisions of the Packaged Commodities Rules promulgated under the Standards of Weights and  Measures  Act,  1976.  The appellant put all  sorts  of resistances   in  the  disposal  of  the  complaint.    Writ petitions  were  filed in the High Courts of Andhra  Pradesh and  Kerala  with prayer for setting aside  the  proceedings pending before the District Forum.  The appellant , however, opted  not  to  file  any reply  to  the  complaint.   Being satisfied that the High Courts, where the writ petitions had been  filed  on behalf of the appellant had not  stayed  the proceedings,  the  District Forum found that  the  complaint filed was in the general interests of the consumers who were entitled to know the price of the product which was required to  be conspicuously displayed and if that was not done, the interests of the consumers would be jeopardised resulting in the  charging  of  exorbitant   price  by  the  unscrupulous retailers  dealing  in  the  sale  of  Kodak  films.   Being satisfied  that the action of the appellant was in violation of the rules applicable in the case, the District Forum vide its  order dated February 28, 1989 directed the appellant to display  the  sale  price of the film on the  package  in  a manner  so as not to violate the order of stay passed by the High  Courts where writs were pending within one month  from the  date  of  the order under intimation  to  the  District Forum.   In  appeal  the State Consumer  Disputes  Redressal Commission   (hereinafter   referred  to   as   ‘the   State Commission’) held that it would be in the in the interest of justice  for the appellant -company to (i) publish the price of  the film in a national daily fortnightly;  (ii) to print notice  on  its  invoice - asking the dealers  to  print  or attach  a  price  tag on the film before selling it  to  the customer,  (iii) issue circulars to each dealer to print  or affix  a  price tag on each film before selling the film  to the customer and (iv) attach price tag on each unit in their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

own  shop/outlet  before  it is sold to the  customer.   Not satisfied  with  the  order  of  the  State  Commission  the appellant  herein approached the National Consumers Disputes Redressal  Commission  (hereinafter  referred   to  as  ‘the National  Commission’ who vide the order impugned  dismissed the revision petition with the following observations:-

     "We would however clarify that when cartons containing large  numbers of film rolls are sold from their out-let  on wholesale  basis in an unopen condition, it would constitute sufficient  compliance  with  the directions issued  by  the State  Commission.   If the revision petitioner  affixes  to each  carton a sticker clearly indicating the price at which each film roll is to be sold in retail and the retailers are informed  by a circular that they are not to sell the  rolls at any price exceeding what is indicated on the sticker.  In the  event however, of the petitioner effecting retail sales from their outlet in Janpath each packet containing a single roll  of film sold by them should bear a sticker showing the price of the film roll".

     It  is  contended on behalf of the appellant that  the District  Forum,  the  State  Commission  and  the  National Commission  were not justified in issuing the directions  to the  appellant as according to their learned counsel neither any  rule  nor  any statute mandated or cast  upon  them  an obligation  to  exhibit /publish or print the price  on  the films  rolls  being  imported  and  sold  in  India  by  its distributor.  It is submitted that sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the  Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities Rules,  1977 (hereinafter called ‘the Rules’) stood  amended at the relevant time which excluded the dealer from affixing the  price  on  the  package of the  film  roll.   The  only requirement  of  law  was  to   display  prominently  at   a conspicuous  place  of  the  premises in  which  the  retail business  was being carried on, the rates at which the local taxes  were  leviable  or  at  the most  the  price  of  the commodities  sold.   The Consumer Protection Act,  1986  has been  enacted  to  provide  for  better  protection  of  the interests  of  the  consumers by making provisions  for  the establishment  of  consumer councils, other authorities  for the settlement of consumer disputes and for matter connected therewith.   The Act was enacted as a result of wide  spread consumer protection movement.  On the basis of the report of the Secretary General on Consumer Protection dated 27th May, 1983  ,  the  United  Nations Economic  and  Social  Council recommended  that  the  world  governments  should  develop, strengthen  and  implement  a coherent  consumer  protection policy  taking  into  consideration the guidelines  set  out therein.   Each  government  was  obliged  to  set  its  own priorities  for  the protection of consumers  in  accordance with  the  economic  and social conditions  of  the  country keeping  in view the needs of its people and bearing in mind the costs and benefit of the proposed legislation Government were  to  further provide adequate infrastructure  including the  establishment  of  public bodies as well  as  financial facilities  to  develop,  implement   and  monitor  consumer protection  policies.   The introduction of new products  in the  developing countries was to be assessed in relation  to the   local  conditions  having   regard  to  the   existing production,  distribution  and consumption patterns  of  the country or region concerned.  The various enactments such as the Contract Act, the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, the Motor Vehicles Act , the Monopolies and Restricted Trade Practices  Act, Food Adulteration Act etc.  were found to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

inadequate  in  providing the relief to the  consumers.   In discharge  of  the international obligations and to  protect the  interest  of the consumer in the country, the  Consumer Protection  Act,  1986 was enacted(hereinafter  called  ‘the 1986  Act ‘.) The reference to the consumer movement and the international  obligations  for protection of the rights  of the consumer, provision has been made herein with the object of  interpreting  the relevant law in a rational manner  and for  achieving the objective setforth in the Act.   Rational approach and not a technical approach is the mandate of law. The  Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( Act 60 of 1976)  was  enacted  to establish standards of  weights  and measures,  to  regulate  inter State trade  or  commerce  in weights  and  measures  and other goods which  are  sold  or distributed  by weight, measure or number and to provide for matters  connected therewith or incidental thereto.  Section 83  empowers  the  Central  Government  to  make  rules  for carrying out the provisions of the said Act.  In exercise of the  aforesaid powers, the Central Government made the  "The Standards  of  Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities  ) Rules  1977  (hereinafter called ‘the Rules").   Chapter  II deals  with  the provisions applicable to packages  intended for retail sale.  Rule 3 provides that the provisions of the aforesaid  Chapter  shall  apply to  packages  intended  for retail  sales and the expression "packaged" when it  occurs, shall  be  construed accordingly.  Rule 4 provides  that  no person  shall  pre-pack or cause or permit to be  pre-packed any  commodity for sale, distribution or delivery unless the package  in which the commodity is pre-packed bears  thereon or  on a label securely affixed thereto such declaration  as is required to be made under the rules.  According to Rule 5 specific commodities are required to be packed and sold only in  standard packages.  Rule 6 as it existed at the relevant time provided thus:-

     "6.Declaration  to be made on every package-(1)  Every package  shall  bear thereon or on a label securely  affixed thereto  a definite plain and conspicuous declaration,  made in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter as, to -

     (a) the name and address of the manufacturer, or where the  manufacturer  is not the packer, of the packer or  with the   written   consent   of   the  manufacturer,   of   the manufacturer;

     (b)  the  common  or generic names  of  the  commodity contained  in  the package;  Explanation:-- Generic name  in relation  to a commodity means the name of the genus of  the commodity,  for example, in the case of common salt,  sodium chloride is the generic name.

     (c) the net quantity, in terms of the standard unit of weight or measure, of the commodity contained in the package or  where  the  commodity is packed or sold by  number,  the number of the commodity contained in the package;

     (d)  the  month  and year in which  the  commodity  is manufactured or pre-packed

     (e)  the  unit  of  the  commodity  contained  in  the packages:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

     Provided that this declaration is not necessary in the case of packages packed in the standard quantities specified in the Third Schedule and the Sixth Schedule of these rules:

     Provided  further  that such declaration shall not  be necessary in the case of packages of these commodities which are  not  specified in the Third Schedule but are packed  in quantities  of 50 g.  100g.  200g, 500g 1kg.  2kg., 5kg., or in  multiples  of 5 kg.  Or in 50 ml, 100 ml.  200 ml.   500 ml.   1  litre,  2 litres, 5 litres and in  multiples  of  5 litres.

     (f) the sale price of the package;

     (g)  where sizes of commodity contained in the package are  relevant, the dimensions of the commodity contained  in the  package  and if the dimensions of the different  pieces are different, the dimensions of each such different piece;

     (h)  such  other  matters as are  specified  in  these rules:

     Provided that-

     (A)  no declaration as to the month and year in  which the  commodity  is  manufactured  or  pre-packed  shall   be required  to  be made on- (i) any bottle  containing  liquid milk,  liquid  beverages containing milk as  an  ingredient, soft  drink,  ready-to-serve fruit beverages, or  the  like, which  is  returnable  by the consumer for  being  refilled; (ii)  any package containing bread and any uncanned  package of (a) vegetables ,(b) fruits,(c) ice cream, (d) butter, (e) cheese,  (f) fish, (g) meat or (h) any other like commodity; (iia)  liquid milk in pouches;  (iii)any package  containing metallic  product;   (iv) any cylinder containing  liquified petroleum  gas or any other gas;  (v) any package containing chemical fertilizer;

     (B) wherein any packaging material bearing thereon the month  in  which  any commodity was expected  to  have  been pre-packed   is  not  exhausted   during  that  month,  such packaging material may be used for pre-packing the concerned commodity   produced  or  manufactured   during   the   next succeeding  month  and  not   thereafter,  but  the  Central Government may, it is satisfied that such packaging material could not be exhausted during the period aforesaid by reason of  any circumstance beyond the control of the  manufacturer or  packer, as the case may be, extend the time during which such  packaging  material may be used, and, where  any  such packaging  material  is exhausted before the expiry  of  the month  indicated thereon, the packaging material intended to be  used  during the next succeeding month may be  used  for pre- packing the concerned commodity;

     (C)  no  declaration  as to the sale  price  shall  be required  to  be made on - (I) any uncanned package  of  (a) vegetables,  (b)  fruits,  (c) ice cream,  (d)  cheese,  (e) butter,  (f) fish, (g) meat or (h) any other like commodity;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

(ii)  any  bottle containing liquid milk,  liquid  beverages containing   milk   as   an   ingredient   ,   soft   drink, ready-to-serve  fruit  beverages,  or  the  like,  which  is returnable  by  the consumer for being refilled;  (iii)  any bottle containing alcoholic beverages, or spirituous liquor; (iv)  any package containing animal feed exceeding 15 kg  or 15.1;   (v)  any  package containing a commodity  for  which controlled  price has been fixed by or under any law for the time being in force.  Explanation I.  The month and the year in which the commodity is pre-packed may be expressed either in  words, or by numerals indicating the month and the year, or  by both.  Explanation II.  Liquid milk does not  include condensed  milk.  (2) Every dealer or other person who makes a retail sale of any commodity in packaged form shall, where local  taxes have to be added to the price indicated on such package   by  the  manufacturer  or  the   packer,   display prominently  at a conspicuous place of the premises in which he  carries  on  his retail sale, the rates at  which  local taxes  are  leviable in respect of the commodities  sold  in packaged form."

     It  is contended that sub-rule(2) of Rule 6 alone  was applicable  in  the  case because the goods in the  form  of Kodak  films  were being sold by the distributor and not  by the  manufacturer.  It is further contended that sub-rule(1) of  Rule 6 is applicable to the manufacturers alone.  We are not  satisfied with such submission.  Accepting such a  plea would  result in frustrating the provisions of the 1986  Act and  thereby  encourage  the retailers  or  distributors  of foreign  made  goods  to charge prices  according  to  their convenience  without  letting the consumer know  the  actual price of the commodity.  A perusal of Rule 6(1) of the Rules clearly  shows  that the stress of the sub-rule is upon  the package and not upon the person manufacturing or selling the package.   The provisions of sub-rule (2) apparently  appear to  be  in  addition  to   the  obligations  cast  upon  the manufacturer  and the dealer under sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the  Rules.  We are also not impressed with the argument  of the  learned  counsel  for  the appellant  that  before  its amendment  on  8-8-1986, Sub-rule (2) as it then stood  cast such  an obligation to display the price but not thereafter. By  amendment provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3) appears to have  been  incorporated  in sub-rule (2) only  by  deleting sub-rule (3).  The superfluous and additional words existing in sub-rule (2) before its amendment were rightly deleted in view  of  the specific provisions of Chapter  II  comprising rule  3,4,5 and 6 as noted herein earlier.  The dealers are, therefore, obliged to comply with the provisions of sub-rule (1)  of Rule 6 of the Rules notwithstanding the confusion if any conceived by them under Rule 6(2) before its amendment.

     During  the course of the argument the learned counsel appearing  for the respondent has shown us some packages  of the  Kodak films wherein the maximum retail price  inclusive of  all  taxes  has  already been displayed.   It  is  worth noticing  that on those packages a specific mention is  made of  "not  for  resale outside India." It  appears  that  the product  of Kodak films, a multi-national company are  being manufactured  and  distributed  in India, thus  neither  the manufacturer  nor the distributor or retailer can escape the liability  of complying with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules.

     After examining the matter from various aspects, we do

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

not  find  any infirmity or illegality in the order  of  the National  Commission requiring interference.  The appeal  is accordingly  dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.