BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.199 of 2018
Date of Instt. 08.05.2018
Date of Decision: 26.11.2021
Rohit Chopra Age 34 S/o Sh. Pawan Chopra R/o NB 266 Lakshmi Pura, Jalandhar Punjab..
..........Complainant
Versus
1. eBay India Private Limited, 14th Floor, North Block, R-Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400063, Maharashtra (India) through its Managing Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative.
2. M/s Xiaomi India C/O Ikewa Business Centre 8th Floor, Umaya Business Bay Tower 1 Cessna Business Park Kadubeesandahalli, Marathalli, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bangalore PIN 560103, through its Manager/Representative/Owner/Partner.
3. M/s Make India Smart Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.144, Udyog Kender, Greater Noida. Ecotech-111, Phase-1, through its Manager/Representative/Owner/Partner. Corporate Office: Make India Smart Private Limited, G-227, Sector-63, Noida-201301.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant. OPs No.1 & 3 exparte.
Sh. Aditya Jain, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein, it is alleged that OP No.1 is selling mobile online the OP No.2 is the registered office of the M/s Xiamomi India OP No.3 is the seller of the handset through OP No.1. That the complainant is a consumer and ordered the handset on the online portal i.e. Xiaomi Redmi Mobile Note 3 (Gold 16 GB) 2 GB Ram and made the payment online from his bank and the handset was delivered by the OP No.3 vide Invoice No.15 (MIS) amounting to Rs.11,999/- at the registered address of the complainant with one year complete warranty and the same was delivered at the address of the complainant. That the handset was delivered to the complainant after a week. After receiving the handset complainant opened the packing then complainant was shocked to see the fact that MRP on the product is Rs.9999/- but complainant was charged Rs.11,999/- and OP no.1 to 3 are charging their customer exceeding the maximum retail price intentionally and knowingly this fact that it is illegal in the ordinary course of law. That as per Law no retail dealer or other person including manufacturer, packer, importer and whole sale dealer shall make any sale of any commodity in packed form at a price exceeding the retail sale price thereof. But in the present time MRP will continue to remain a paper tiger and not benefiting any consumer. That OPs No.1 to 3 are indulged in this unfair trade practice as OP No.2 is not keeping the check on its products distributor. That all the OPs knowingly and vexatiously harassed the complainant. The OPs No.1 to 3 have knowing fully charged exceeding to the MRP which is illegal in the eyes of law and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be allowed and OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as travel and legal fees of counsel and further OPs be directed to refund of the exceeding price paid to the tune of Rs.2000/- and further Rs.20,000/- for loss or injury suffered.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.1 & 3 failed to appear and ultimately, OPs No.1 & 3 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply, whereby he contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the OP No.1 is an e-commerce company and further averred that the OP No.2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 and was incorporated in India on October 7, 2014 having its principal place of business at Karnataka. The OP No.2 is engaged in the marketing, sale and service inter alia of mobile phones in India under the brands “Mi” and “Xiaomi”. The OP No.3 is an unauthorized seller of the products marketing, sale and service inter alia of mobile phones in India by the OP No.2 in India. That complainant, Mr.Rohit Chopra has allegedly purchased a phone sold under the Mi brand-namely, the Mi Redmi Note 3 mobile phone for Rs.11,999/-. At the outset, it is submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous, concocted and has been filed to unnecessarily harass the OP No. 2. The OP No. 2 is a third party which was completely unaware of the alleged act. Moreover, it is also submitted that the OP No. 3 is an unauthorized seller of the products sold by the OP No. 2 in India and hence OP No. 2 is not liable for any illegal acts (such as over charging the customers in the present instance) carried out by the OP No.3. On this ground alone, the Complaint should be dismissed in limine, without prejudice, against the OP No. 2. It is further submitted that the Complainants' grievance in the present Complaint is that the OP No.1 and OP No. 3 has sold the alleged product on a high price than maximum retail price. The OP No.2 is not responsible in any way for such sale by an unauthorized vendor and is therefore not a proper party to this proceeding. The complainant has no cause of action whatsoever against the OP No. 2. The Complainants are invited to seek any applicable remedy against the OP No.1 and OP No. 3 instead.
3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
4. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OP No.2 simply suffered a statement that his reply/objections read as evidence on behalf of the OP No.2 and closed the evidence. OPs No.1 & 3 are already exparte.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for the OP No.2 and also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The complainant has come to the Commission on the ground that he purchased Xiaomi Redmi Mobile Note 3 (Gold 16 GB) 2 GB Ram from the online portal eBay i.e. OP No.1 and made the payment of Rs.11,999/-. The handset was delivered by the OP No.3. Ex.C-3 shows that he placed the order through eBay i.e. online portal for the purchase of the Xiomi Redmi handset and the order was confirmed by the OP No.1 and payment of Rs.11,999/- was received which finds corroboration from the statement of account Ex.C-4 and the bill Ex.C-2. Perusal of Ex.C-1 shows that the MRP of this Redmi Note 3 handset was Rs.9999/- and not Rs.11,999/- as received.
7. The contention of the OP No.2 is that the OP No.3 is an unauthorized seller of the products marketing, sale and service inter alia of mobile phones in India by the OP No.2 in India. The only defence of the OP No.2 is that they are not liable and responsible for any act or sale of their product by an unauthorized vendor. The OPs No.1 & 3 have already been proceeded against exparte and nobody has appeared to defend their case. Admittedly, OP No.2 is manufacturing company and as per the allegation, OP No.3 is the unauthorized vendor, meaning thereby that OP No.2 is well aware that OP No.3 is selling their products despite he has not been authorized by them. No document has been filed on the record by the OP No.2 to show the list of authorized dealers or authorized vendor to sell their products. Merely saying that the OP No.3 is unauthorized vendor does not exonerate them from their liability. OP No.2 has not produced on record any document to show that any action was ever taken by the OP No.2 against the OP No.3 for selling their product despite the fact that they were never authorized to sell the same. Nothing has been produced on record by the OP No.2, therefore it cannot be said that they are not proper party and they are not responsible for any act of the OP No.3.
8. From the above detailed discussion, it is proved that the said handset was purchased by the complainant for an amount of Rs.11,999/- and it is well settled law that the seller or company cannot charge more money exceeding to the MRP. The amount of Rs.11,999/- has been deposited by the complainant, the same has been received by the OP No.1 as per Ex.C-3 i.e. Confirmation Order and the handset of the OP’s No.2 company was delivered by the OP No.3. So, all the OPs are jointly and severally liable for receiving the excess amount from the complainant, therefore the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed and the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs No.1 to 3 are directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.2000/- and further OPs No.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and further OPs No.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Dated Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
26.11.2021 Member President
