JUDGMENT - V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, PRESIDENT :---The challenge raised in revision petition is against the order dated September 13, 1994 passed by the State Commission, Rajasthan confirming an order dated January 16, 19 passed by the District Forum, Bikaner in Complaint No. 89 of 1992 on file whereby the revision petitioner M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. directed to refund to the complaint a total amount of Rs. 98.90 on account of alleged excess price charged from the complainant in respect the sale of two tins of "Anik Ghee" and also to pay a compensation Rs. 2,000/- for mental pain and physical distress. 2.The complainant purchased a two kilogram tin of Anik Ghee manufactured by M/s. Lipton India Ltd., from the retailer M/s. Ratan Bharat Bikaner on August 28, 1991 under Cash Memo No. 1717 after paying price of Rs. 200/-. Similarly he again purchased another two kilogram to Anik Ghee from the same shop on September 7, 1991 under Cash Memo No. 1723 after paying a price of Rs. 200/-. The grievance put forward the complaint filed before the District Forum was that though there was sticker pasted on the two containers (tins) wherein the price of Rs. 200/- was written in ink, the complainant had found on removing the pasted stickers that the price originally printed on the tin was only "Rs. 150.55 (local taxes etc.)". According to the complainant an amount of Rs. 49.45 had been collected from him in excess of the marked price in respect of each tin of ghee sold to him. Hence he approached the District Forum seeking to recover from the revision petitioner who is the manufacturer of the goods and also from the dealer, who was impleaded as second respondent a total amount of Rs. 98.90 allegedly collected from him as excess price and also compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused to him. The District Forum upheld the contention of the complainant and passed an award in his favour directing refund of Rs. 98.90 on account of excess price collected and also an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental pain etc. On appeal filed by the present revision petitioner before the State Commission, Rajasthan, the order of the District Forum was confirmed by the State Commission. 98.90 on account of excess price collected and also an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental pain etc. On appeal filed by the present revision petitioner before the State Commission, Rajasthan, the order of the District Forum was confirmed by the State Commission. 3.The present case is to be decided with reference to the provisions of Standards of Weights Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 as they stood in August and September, 1991 when the complainant purchased the two tins of ghee. In (Hindustan Liver Ltd. v. Shivam Agarwal and others)1, 1993(II) C.P.J. 227 (N.C.) decided by this Commission on December 17, 1992, this Commission had occasion to consider the question whether in the case of revision of price effected subsequent to the packing of goods in containers it was permissible for the manufacturer or packer of the product to indicate the revised price of the commodity by the process of pasting a sticker with their logo on the container and whether the act of pasting such sticker would amount to non-compliance with the aforementioned rules or to unfair trade practice. Dealing with the question, this Commission observed as follows :--- "7.Under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, all that is required is that the manufacturer's name and address, the name of the contents of the package, the weight, the date of manufacture or packing, i.e. the month and year, and the price of the commodity, have to be prominently displayed on the wrapper or the container. With regard to date one month's leeway is given for the month to be printed to facilitate the manufacturers from not wasting any packing material. And if there is any change in the price, only the manufacture or packer can put a sticker with their logo and the revised price on it. 8.In addition to this by an administrative order of the Government of India issued under the Essential Commodities Act, each shopkeeper is required to display prominently in his shop on a board the Government Notification, if any, or any changes in taxes and from which date the change is valid. This practice is not meticulously followed by all shopkeepers. 8.In addition to this by an administrative order of the Government of India issued under the Essential Commodities Act, each shopkeeper is required to display prominently in his shop on a board the Government Notification, if any, or any changes in taxes and from which date the change is valid. This practice is not meticulously followed by all shopkeepers. The Government department entrusted with the duly of supervision and checking should ensure that they do, so that if any consumer has a doubt about paying the higher or altered price he/she could check of the displayed board, as to why there is a change in the price. In this way the fear of opening of flood gates of mischief to be indulged in either by the manufacturer, distributor or wholesaler, or retailer is curtailed. 9.Thus the act of pasting stickers by the manufacturer or packer with their logo on it to indicate revised prices cannot be said to be not in non-conformity with the Standards of Weights and Measurers Act (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 or the essential proof of any unfair trade practice being indulged in. In view of the above, we allow the revision petition and set aside the orders of the State Commission and District Forum. There will be no order as to costs. Y. KRISHAN, Member :---I concur. To me the implication of the order above is that if there is no price control, the manufacturers/packers of packaged commodities can alter the price/date of manufacture of a commodity already indicated on the package, as and when they like, provided a new label is affixed to the packaged commodity in accordance with the Standard Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977; only the retail sale price, original or revised as the case may be, will be inclusive of all taxed etc." 4.The State Commission has wrongly distinguished the said ruling by stating that in the aforementioned case which came up before this Commission, the interval of time between the date of marking of the original price on the container and the date mentioned on the sticker showing the revised price was only one month. We are unable to see how this time factor which had no relevance at all could be relied on by the State Commission in justification of its by passing the ruling of this Commission. We are unable to see how this time factor which had no relevance at all could be relied on by the State Commission in justification of its by passing the ruling of this Commission. This mistake could have been avoided if only the State Commission had referred to the fact that by Notification dated 26th August, 1993, the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution amended the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 by omitting the Explanation which was originally contained in Rule 4 thereof and by substituting a new sub-rule (4), laying down the procedure to be followed in the event of revision of prices of a commodity after it had been packed in a container with a price marked on it. As is seen from the explanatory note given in the said Gazette Notification issued by the Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution which reads :--- "1.Explanation clause to Rule 4 shall be omitted. 2.Sub-rule (4) to Rule 23 shall be substituted by another sub-rule which will do away with the practice of fixing price stickers on the package at any level of trade and make it obligatory on the part of the manufacturers to issue press and advertisement in case of any increase/decrease in price due to revision of taxes." 5.The very object of substituting sub-rule (4) of Rule 23 by a new provision was to do away with the practice of fixing price sticker on the packets in the event of a revision of a price/tax. It obviously follows that until the coming into force of the said amendment in August 1993 there was the permitted practice of showing the revised price of a commodity by affixing a sticker on to the container showing the revised price. Since the sale and purchase of the two tins of ghee in the present case was effected in 1991 long prior to the said amendment introduced only on 26th August, 1993 the case is clearly governed by the aforesaid ruling of this Commission, wherein it has been clearly held that the act of pasting stickers by manufacturers and packaged with logo to indicate revised price of any commodity cannot be said to be not in conformity with the Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977 or the Essential Commodities Act and no element of unfair trade practice is involved therein. Such being the legal position the impugned orders of the State Commission and District Forum are illegal and without jurisdiction. They are hereby set aside and the complaint petition filed by the first respondent before the District Forum is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs. Petition allowed. *****