A restaurant owner in east Chennai has been directed to pay a fine of Rs.15,000 to a customer who was asked to shell out Rs.38 for a water bottle which had a maximum retail price (MRP) of Rs.18. The fine comes at a time when consumer courts are turning the heat on shop-owners who overcharge. In a recent landmark decision, the state consumer commission had slapped a fine of Rs.50,000 on a cineplex for similar malpractice. Mr. Mehta was awarded the compensation by east district consumer forum president and members directing Zaika Bazaar, Karkardooma Complex, to compensate Mr. Mehta for overcharging. The Forum said: “The present complaint is covered by the judgment of the state consumer commission in case of Nirulas vs Ankit Jain in which it said no trader or service provider can charge more price than an item’s MRP printed on the packed item, if delivered packed”. Ordering the restaurant owner to discontinue the malpractice, the forum said charging higher amount than MRP, if delivered in packed form, was against the law of the land. Mr. Mehta had bought a bottle of Aquafina water from the restaurant in November last year and was asked to pay Rs.38 for it, including a VAT of Rs.8, when the bottle had a MRP of Rs.18 printed on it.

Which of the following statements can be recognised as importance of consumer protection act from the consumer's point of view after reading the above passage?

Widespread exploitation of consumers

Consumers might be exploited by unscrupulous, exploitative and unfair trade practices like defective and unsafe products, adulteration, false and misleading advertising, hoarding, black-marketing etc. Consumers need protection against such malpractices of the sellers. In the above case study, the restaurant owner tried exploiting Mr. Mehta by charging the price of water bottle more than the MRP, to which the consumer replied by the going to the consumer court.