Consumer Commission Penalises Shop for Selling iPhone above MRP, Terms it Deficiency In Service

Consumer Commission Penalises Shop for Selling iPhone above MRP, Terms it Deficiency In Service

The Ludhiana bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Punjab, presided over by Sanjeev Batra (President), with Jaswinder Singh and Monika Bhagat as members, has found a Ludhiana-based phone seller responsible for both service deficiency and unfair trade practices. The violation was related to the seller charging a price exceeding the maximum retail price (MRP) for an iPhone purchased by the complainant.

On July 31, complainant Shivam Grover bought an Apple iPhone XR 64GB from the Ludhiana-based seller M/s. Cell Cafe for ₹51,000. Subsequently, he discovered that the product's box displayed a Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of ₹49,900, leading to his realisation that he had been overcharged.

Upon detailed examination, it came to light that the seller had issued two invoices for the identical product. One bore a cash payment date of July 31, 2020, while the other indicated a card sale dated July 30, 2020, both with the same IMEI number.

The complainant contended that this practice constituted an effort by the seller to levy excessive charges on consumers, including the government. Discontented with this situation, the complainant proceeded to file a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ludhiana, Punjab (District Commission).

Despite being served with a summons, the seller failed to make an appearance before the District Commission to offer their perspective on the case. Consequently, they did not provide any counterarguments or explanations concerning the allegations made by the complainant.

Upon investigation, the District Commission determined that the seller had indeed issued two invoices for the identical product, each bearing the same IMEI number. One invoice indicated a cash sale, while the other indicated a card sale. This practice gave rise to concerns regarding unfair trade practices, specifically in the context of issuing invoices in a manner not stipulated by law. Such practices were deemed unfair and misleading, in violation of Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act.

The District Commission underscored the primary purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, which is to protect the rights and interests of consumers. It referenced Section 2(9) of the Act, which delineates the rights of consumers. This section includes the right to safeguard against unfair trade practices and the right to receive information about the quality, quantity, and price of goods.

The District Commission further observed that the act of overcharging for the product was a direct infringement of the Consumer Protection Act, as it entailed charging a price that exceeded the MRP, a practice explicitly prohibited by law. The District Commission's verdict was that the seller had indeed engaged in unfair trade practices and had levied an amount on the complainant that exceeded the MRP.

The District Commission issued a directive mandating the seller to reimburse the complainant an amount of ₹1,100, which represented the surplus amount charged for the Apple iPhone XR 64GB. Additionally, the seller was instructed to provide interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum on the refunded amount. Furthermore, in order to rectify the deficiency in service and the unfair trade practices, the seller was directed to compensate the complainant with a composite amount of ₹15,000.