Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/229/2020

Harvinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Icrescent, Apple Authorised Reseller - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar Garg

01 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/229/2020
Date of Institution	:	21/07/2020
Date of Decision	:	01/02/2023

 

Harvinder Kumar r/o H.No.4020, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Icrescent, Apple Authorised Reseller, SCO No.1015, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
2. Manager-Customer Support, Apple India Private Limited, No.24, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower C, UB City, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Anil Kumar Garg, Counsel for complainant
	:	OP-1 ex-parte
	:	None for OP-2

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh.Harvinder Kumar, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant had purchased an Apple – iphone XR 64GB mobile (hereinafter referred to as “subject iphone”) from OP-1 vide bill dated 12.6.2020 (Annexure C-1) for the sum of ₹52,500/-. After reaching home, when the complainant opened the packing, he found the MRP printed on the packing (Annexure C-2) as ₹49,900/- inclusive of taxes.  Thereafter the complainant sent email (Annexure C-3) to OP-1 intimating about overcharging of the price of subject iphone from him, but, the said email was not responded. The complainant also sent legal notice dated 16.6.2020 (Annexure C-4) through email (Annexure C-5), but, the same was of no avail.  In this manner, OP-1 had charged an amount of ₹2,600/- in excess to the MRP. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Alleged the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP-1 was properly served and when OP-1 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 29.1.2021.
3. OP-2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written statement/reply, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of suppression of facts and that the complaint is malafide.  It is alleged that the answering OP only comes under the definition of importer/packer of the subject iphone under the definition provided under Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “2011 Rules”).  As per Rule 2 (m) of the 2011 Rules, definition of retail sale price is “the maximum price at which the commodity in packaged form may be sold to the ultimate consumer and the price shall be printed on the package”. The manner in which MRP and other information has to be displayed on packaged box in which the iphone is sold by OP-2 is covered by Rules (Annexure R-1).   It is further alleged that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Legal Metrology Division vide its notification dated 1.4.2020 (Annexure R-2) instructed all manufacturers/ importers/packagers permitting them to display the change in price as a result of change in the GST Tax rate on mobile phones from 12% to 18% w.e.f. 1.4.2020. The said notification further permits manufacturers/packers/importers to declare the revised MRP (taking into account the revised tax rate) on unsold stock prior to the revision of the GST until 30.9.2020 or till such date such unsold stocks are exhausted. It is further prescribed through the instructions for displaying the revised prices that the original MRP shall continue to be displayed and the revised price shall not be overwritten on it and also that the manufacturers or packers or importers shall make at least two advertisements in one or more newspapers in this regard and also by circulation of notice to the dealers and to the Director of Legal Metrology in the Central Govt. and Controllers of Legal Metrology in the States and Union Territories indicating the change in price of such packages.  Since the revised price was charged, the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed. On merits it is alleged that the complainant had purchased the subject iphone on 12.6.2020 after amendment in GST rates applicable which were informed to the public by OP-2 vide notices dated 3.4.2020 (Annexure R-3). The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In replication, complainant re-asserted his claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the subject iphone from OPs by paying an amount of ₹52,500/-, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs have charged an amount of ₹2,600/- in excess of the MRP, as displayed on the packing box as ₹49,900/- and this act of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OPs have charged an amount of ₹52,500/- i.e. the revised price of the subject iphone as per the notification dated 1.4.2020 (Annexure R-2) issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, Legal Metrology Division and there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it is proved on record from the copy of packing carton (Annexure C-2) that the MRP of the subject iphone was ₹49,900/- and it is further proved on record that the OPs had charged an amount of ₹52,500/- vide tax invoice (Annexure C-1) from the complainant, i.e. an amount of ₹2,600/- in excess of the MRP, complainant has successfully proved unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.
   3. On the other hand, OP-2 in its written arguments contended that as the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Legal Metrology Division vide notification dated 1.4.2020 (Annexure R-2) has specifically issued instructions that the original MRP shall continue to be displayed and the revised price shall not be overwritten on it and the manufactures or packers or importers shall make at least two advertisements in one or more newspapers which OP-2 had already done by publishing the same in two newspapers i.e. Navbharat Times and Hindustan Times dated 3.4.2020 vide Annexure R-3 and the OPs have only charged the revised price from the complainant at the time of sale of the subject iphone, there is no violation of the any rule by the OPs and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed. 
   4. In the light of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the notification dated 1.4.2020 (Annexure R-2) as it is the defence of the OPs that the revised price of the subject iphone was charged by the OPs from the complainant, as per the said notification, and there is no violation of the rules.  The relevant clauses (i), (ii) & (iii) of the notification dated 1.4.2020 (Annexure R-2) are reproduced as under for convenience :-

“(i)    The difference between the retail sale price, originally printed on the package and the revised price shall not, in any case, be higher than the extent of increase in the tax if any, or in the case of imposition of fresh tax, such fresh tax, on account of implementation of GST Act and Rules.

(ii)    The original MRP shall continue to be displayed and the revised price shall not overwrite on it.

(iii)   Manufacturers or packers or importers shall make at least two advertisements in one or more newspapers in this regard and also by circulation of notices to the dealers and to the Director of Legal Metrology in the Central Government and Controllers of Legal Metrology in the States and Union Territories, indicating the change in the price of such packages.”

 

Thus, one thing is clear from the aforesaid notification that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs had allowed the manufacturers/packers/importers to continue with the original MRP be displayed and the revised price shall not be overwritten on it, provided that the manufactures or packers or importers shall make at least two advertisements in one or more newspapers in this regard and the notices be circulated to the dealers and to the Director of Legal Metrology in the Central Govt. and Controllers of Legal Metrology in the States and Union Territories indicating the change in price of such packages.  In the case in hand, as the answering OP has already proved the said notices having been published in two newspapers vide news item (Annexure R-3) in the Navbharat Times and Hindustan Times dated 3.4.2020, which specifically shows at Sr.No.11 that the revised price of the subject iphone as ₹52,500/-, it stands proved on record that the OPs have charged the revised price of the subject iphone as per the notification (Annexure R-2) and there is no violation of the 2011 Rules and the complainant has failed to prove on record that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/02/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member