Using Statement-I alone: Statement-I tells us that the cost of p is not more than that of r. This means $p \le r$, but it does not provide a unique relationship between p, q, and r to determine the exact price of p. Therefore, Statement-I alone is insufficient.

Using Statement-II alone: Statement-II tells us that the cost of r is not more than that of p. This means $r \le p$, but again, it does not provide enough information to determine the exact price of p. Thus, Statement-II alone is also insufficient.

Combining both Statements: From Statement-I, we know $p \le r$, and from Statement-II, we know $r \le p$. This means $p = r$, and together with the information that the total cost of p, q, and r is ₹50, we can solve for p. Let $p = r$, and since q costs ₹16, the total cost equation is: $p + q + r = 50$, $p + 16 + p = 50$, $2p = 34$, $p = ₹17$.

Thus, combining both statements gives us a unique solution for the price of p.