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.

After reading the above case study, according to you, which of the following statements stands to be true regarding "customer"?

Caveat emptor has now been changed to caveat venditor 

A consumer is said to be a king in a free market economy. The earlier approach of caveat emptor, which means “Let the buyer beware”, has now been changed to caveat venditor (“Let the seller beware”). However, with growing competition and in an attempt to increase their sales and market share, manufacturers and service providers may be tempted to engage in unscrupulous, exploitative and unfair trade practices like defective and unsafe products, adulteration, false and misleading advertising, hoarding, black-marketing etc. This means that a consumer might be exposed to risks due to unsafe products, might suffer from bad health due to adulterated food products, might be cheated because of misleading advertisements or sale of spurious products. Thus, there is a need for providing adequate protection to consumers against such practices of the sellers and for which consumer protection act came into existence and made the consumer KING of the market. Business organizations value the customers for 2 reasons i.e. long term benefit for profitability and their rights as a consumer which involves getting compensation for any kind of fraudulent activity.