Charging In Excess Of MRP Amounts To Deficiency In Service, Ludhiana District Commission Holds Cell Cafe Liable

Brief Facts:

Shivam Grover (“Complainant”) purchased an Apple iPhone XR 64GB on 31.07.2020 from M/s. Cell Cafe (“Seller”), Ludhiana, with an invoice amount of Rs. 51,000/-. However, the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) printed on the product's box was Rs. 49,900/-. Subsequently, when the complainant attempted to exchange the phone, he realized that he had been charged more than the MRP.

Upon closer inspection, it was discovered that the seller had issued two bills for the same product: one with a cash payment dated 31.07.2020 and another with a card sale dated 30.07.2020, both with the same IMEI number. The complainant alleged that this practice amounted to an attempt by the seller to overcharge consumers, including the government. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, Punjab (“District Commission”).

The seller didn’t appear before the District Commission to present their side of the case despite being served with a summons. As a result, they did not provide any counterarguments or explanations regarding the complainant's allegations.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission found that the seller had issued two bills for the same product with the same IMEI number, one for a cash sale and another for a card sale. This practice raised concerns of unfair trade practices, particularly the issuance of bills in a manner not prescribed by law. Such practices were deemed unfair and deceptive under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act.

The District Commission emphasized that the Consumer Protection Act was enacted to safeguard the rights and interests of consumers. It quoted Section 2(9) of the Act, which outlines the rights of consumers, including the right to be protected against unfair trade practices and the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, and price of goods.

Further, it noted that overcharging of the product constituted a clear violation of the Consumer Protection Act, as it involved charging a price over the MRP, which is prohibited by law. The District Commission concluded that the seller engaged in unfair trade practices and had charged the complainant an amount over the MRP.

Consequently, it directed the seller to refund the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,100/-, which was the excess amount charged for the Apple iPhone XR 64GB, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Further, it directed the seller to pay a composite compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant as a remedy for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

Case: Shivam Grover vs Cell Café and Anr.

Case No.: CC/23/62

Advocate for the Complainant: H.K. Dhariwal

Advocate for the Respondent: Ex Parte

Click Here To Read/Download Order