PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 239/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Anshuman Mishra,

At-BasantaNivas, Near Hanuman Mandir,

A.N.Guha Lane, Sambalpur-768001, Odisha, India         

Mob No. 8249826221.                                        ……………..Complainant

Vrs

Reliance Retail Limited,

3^rd Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao,

Mumbai-400002, Maharashtra.                                                          …….....Opp.Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Self
2. For the O.P.                        :- Sri. R.K. Sahu & Associates

Date of Filing:05.08.2024,  Date of Hearing :04.11.2024  Date of Judgement : 26.11.2024

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant ordered Nippo Gold AA UM 3DG Extra Heavy Duty Batteries (pack of 10) from Jiomart.com on dtd. 14.07.2024. The issue is that on the product page of jiomart.com the M.R.P of the said product was shown to be of Rs. 180/- and with a discount of 36% the selling price of the product was shown to be of Rs. 180/-, but after receiving the said product the M.R.P was found to be of Rs. 170/-. The e-commerce platform jiomart.com of Reliance Retail Limited, scammed, harassed mentally, physically, financially and cheated the Complainant by misrepresenting the M.R.P of the product.  
2. The Version of the OP is that the prevalent Maximum Retail Price for the impugned product at the time of purchase was Rs. 180/-, however the stock in the inventory of the store which fulfilled the order of the Complainant did not have the impugned products with the MRP of Rs. 180/- but the inventory stock of the product having MRP of 170/- and therefore the product of the batch which had MRP of Rs. 170/- were delivered to the Complainant. Upon receipt of the Complainant, this OP reached out to the Complainant to resolve the issue at hand and offered to pay the difference amount to the Complainant. As the store did not have physical stock at the update MRP of Rs. 180/- and due to a recent update in the app/web inventory. The OP as a marketplace platform keep website updated with the current prices with the latest batch and since the OP is operating on a PAN India basis, it is quite possible that a particular store may have old batch with lesser MRP may also be available for the same product due to which such discrepancy arose with respect to the MRP listed and delivered, which led to this pricing error. It is only because of sheer human error due to different batches of the Impugned Product having different MRPs available at the store. The OP has no fraudulent intention to cheat any person including the Complainant. It is the OP which has sold the Impugned Product to the Complainant at a much lesser price of Rs. 115/- as against the alleged MRP of Rs. 170/-. The Complainant has suppressed this important fact and misrepresented facts before this Hon,ble Commission and is playing fraud on this Hon’ble Commission and is trying to mislead this Hon,ble commission.  
3. After going through the records, evidences and submission of parties, it is observed that the OP is misleading the consumers by way of falsely describing, expressing and deliberately concealing the M.R.P. So, the OP is deficient in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the O.P is liable for giving compensation to the Complainant.

                             ORDER

The O.P is directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards deficiency in service as Compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 26^th day of Nov, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.