Given below are two statements, one is labelled as Assertion (A) and the other as Reason (R). Assertion (A) : Consumers can bargain below Maximum Retail Price (MRP). Reason (R) : MRP is a price a seller must charge from the buyer. Select the correct answer from the code given below : Code :
- (a)Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
- (b)(A) is true, but (R) is false
- (c)(A) is false, but (R) is true
- (d)Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
Correct — B, (A) is true, but (R) is false. Before the substance, one warning about this booklet: its assertion-reason code is rotated throughout and NO letter keeps its usual meaning. All 20 assertion-reason items in this paper run (a) both true / R does NOT explain A, (b) A true / R false, (c) A false / R true, (d) both true / R IS the explanation — that is the standard code shifted one place, with the familiar (a) meaning pushed all the way to (d). What a candidate has drilled as (b) is printed here at (a), and what they have drilled as (c) is printed here at (b). Read the code off the page every time. Now the economics. The Assertion is true. MRP stands for Maximum Retail Price, and the word that does all the work is 'maximum'. It is the manufacturer-declared ceiling printed on a packaged commodity, inclusive of all taxes, and it fixes the highest price at which that pack may lawfully be sold anywhere in India. Nothing in it obliges the retailer to charge that much. Retailers may and constantly do sell below it — festival discounts, e-commerce price wars, a chemist's standing 10 per cent off, or simply a customer who haggles at the counter. So a consumer can indeed bargain below the MRP. The Reason is false, and it is false in a precise way: it converts a ceiling into a mandate. MRP is not a price 'a seller must charge from the buyer'; it is the price a seller must not exceed. That asymmetry is the whole point of the regime — charging above the printed MRP is an offence under India's packaged-commodity law, while charging below it is ordinary commerce. India's MRP also differs from the 'recommended retail price' used in many other countries, where the manufacturer's figure is only a suggestion with no legal force; India's is legally enforceable, but enforceable only as an upper limit. Assertion true, Reason false, which on this paper as on any other is option (b).
- (a)Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A) — This requires the Reason to be true, and it is not. 'MRP is a price a seller must charge from the buyer' describes a fixed or administered price — the kind of thing the Fair and Remunerative Price for sugarcane or a statutory minimum price is — not a maximum. If MRP really were a price the seller must charge, the Assertion would be impossible: you cannot bargain below a mandatory price. The two statements as written cannot both be true, which by itself rules this option out. Note also the letter. On a standard UPSC paper this meaning — both true, R not the explanation — is printed at (b); this booklet moves it to (a). A candidate reciting the remembered layout can land on it for entirely the wrong reason.
- (c)(A) is false, but (R) is true — This is the exact inversion of the truth and it is what a candidate marks who reads 'maximum retail price' as 'the retail price'. Both halves fail. The Assertion is not false — discounting below MRP is legal and universal, which is why 'X per cent off MRP' is the standard form of an Indian retail advertisement. And the Reason is not true — no law compels a seller to extract the printed figure; the law only forbids exceeding it. Choosing this option usually means the candidate has assumed that a legally printed price must be a legally compulsory price.
- (d)Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A) — Fails at the same first hurdle as (a): the Reason is false, so no explanatory relationship can be built on it. It is also self-defeating on its own terms. If the Reason were true and MRP were a price the seller must charge, it would not explain the Assertion, it would contradict it — a compulsory price is exactly what you cannot bargain below. Watch the letter here too: in this booklet (d) is the 'both true and R IS the explanation' slot, the meaning a candidate would normally look for at (a), so it attracts candidates twice over.
MRP is India's distinctive answer to retail overcharging. Every pre-packaged commodity sold in the country must carry a declared Maximum Retail Price, inclusive of all taxes, and no seller anywhere — a village kirana, an airport kiosk, a hill-station tea stall — may charge more than that figure. The declaration is the manufacturer's, and it is a ceiling only. Below it the market is free: the retailer's own margin, competition, festival demand and the customer's willingness to haggle all decide what is actually paid. This makes MRP quite different from a fixed or administered price, where the state sets the number the transaction must occur at, and different again from a minimum support or statutory minimum price, which is a floor protecting a seller rather than a ceiling protecting a buyer.
The question is really a vocabulary test dressed as economics: does the candidate know what the M in MRP is doing? Test the pair by cases. Can a shop legally sell a 20-rupee biscuit packet for 15? Yes — that is a discount, and discounts off MRP are the ordinary language of Indian retail. Can it legally sell the same packet for 25? No — that is overcharging and is punishable. One legal direction, one illegal direction: therefore a ceiling, therefore the Assertion stands and the Reason falls. It also helps to name the family the Reason has strayed into. A price a seller must charge is an administered price; a price a buyer must be offered at least is a floor such as the sugarcane Fair and Remunerative Price. MRP belongs to neither family, and the examiner is checking whether you can tell the three apart.
- MRP is 'a manufacturer-calculated price that is the highest price that can be charged for a product sold in India', printed on the pack and inclusive of all taxes
- Selling below MRP is entirely lawful — 'the retailers may choose to sell products for less than the MRP' — which is what makes discounts, sales and bargaining possible
- Selling above the printed MRP is an offence under India's packaged-commodity labelling regime, and remains a common consumer complaint at tourist spots, airports and remote areas
- India's MRP differs from the 'recommended retail price' regimes of many other countries, where the manufacturer's figure 'is only a recommendation, not enforceable by law'
- MRP is a ceiling for the buyer's protection, unlike a Minimum Support Price or the sugarcane Fair and Remunerative Price, which are floors for the seller's protection, and unlike an administered price, which fixes the transaction price itself
The whole question turns on the single word 'Maximum'. One direction from the printed figure is illegal, the other is ordinary commerce — so (A) is true and (R), which turns the ceiling into a mandate, is false.
- This booklet's rotated assertion-reason code — no letter keeps its usual meaning. All 20 assertion-reason items here run (a) both true / R does NOT explain A, (b) A true / R false, (c) A false / R true, (d) both true / R IS the explanation: the standard code shifted one place. Always read the printed code rather than reciting the remembered layout
- Reading MRP as 'the' retail price rather than the 'maximum' retail price — that single slip makes the Assertion look false and the Reason look true, and delivers option (c)
- Confusing a ceiling with a floor. MRP protects the buyer by capping; MSP and FRP protect the seller by guaranteeing a minimum. An assertion-reason pair that swaps the two is a standard construction
UPPSC likes assertion-reason pairs built on an everyday transaction where the Reason quietly misdefines a term — here 'maximum' turned into 'must'. UPSC prefers to test the same ground through consumer-law statements (what a consumer forum can do, who may file a complaint) or through the administered-price family (statutory minimum price of sugarcane, essential commodities), so a candidate should hold the ceiling-versus-floor distinction ready in both forms.
With reference to consumers’ rights/privileges under the provisions of law in India, which of the following statements is/are correct? 1. Consumers are empowered to take samples for food testing. 2. When a consumer files a complaint in any consumer forum, no fee is required to be paid. 3. In case of death of a consumer, his/her legal heir can file a complaint in the consumer forum on his/her behalf. Select the correct answer using the codes given below :
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 2 and 3 only
- (c) 1 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer(c) 1 and 3 only
The same subject — what the law actually gives a consumer, as opposed to what people assume it gives. Both questions are won by refusing to over-read a protective statute: there the trap is assuming that filing before a consumer forum must be free, here it is assuming that a legally printed price must be a legally compulsory one. The protection is real but narrower and more precisely shaped than instinct suggests.
Consider the following statements : 1. The Union Government fixes the Statutory Minimum Price of sugarcane for each sugar season. 2. Sugar and sugarcane are essential commodities under the Essential Commodities Act. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 2 only
- (c) Both 1 and 2
- (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer(c) Both 1 and 2
Supplies the contrasting family that Reason (R) has wandered into. The statutory minimum price of sugarcane really is a price the buyer must pay the seller — a floor fixed by government — and sugar and sugarcane really are controlled under the Essential Commodities Act. Setting that beside MRP is the cleanest way to fix the distinction the UPPSC question turns on: a floor compels a minimum, a ceiling forbids an excess, and only the second describes MRP.
- practice — not a real PYQ
With reference to Maximum Retail Price (MRP) in India, consider the following statements: 1. It is inclusive of all taxes. 2. A retailer may lawfully sell a packaged commodity below the printed MRP. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a)Only 1
- (b)Only 2
- (c)Both 1 and 2
- (d)Neither 1 nor 2
Answer(c) Both 1 and 2 — the printed MRP is tax-inclusive, and it is a ceiling only, so discounting below it is ordinary lawful commerce while charging above it is an offence.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Which one of the following is a price FLOOR rather than a price ceiling?
- (a)Maximum Retail Price printed on a packaged commodity
- (b)Fair and Remunerative Price of sugarcane
- (c)The price cap on a scheduled formulation under drug price control
- (d)A tariff cap notified by a regulator
Answer(b) Fair and Remunerative Price of sugarcane — it guarantees the cane grower a minimum, whereas MRP and price caps set maxima that must not be exceeded.