ORDER
Naveen Puri, President.
In brief, the present complaint has been filed by Sh. Sumit Kumar against the titled opposite parties [hereinafter called (for short) jointly as the OPs & individually as OP1 Vendor & OP2 Manufacturer) alleging Sale of one Apple Cell-Phone to him @ Rs.67,500/- against on box-printed MRP (Maximum Retail Price) @ Rs.64,900/- having thus over-charged @ Rs.2,600/- in excess of the approved market price/manufacturing co.'s sale price.
2. At the complainant's query from the OP1 Vendor upon the issue of overcharging he was misbehaved vide a stint of rude replies. Having felt low and humiliated, the complainant on 24.06.2020 served a 15 days legal notice upon the OP for refund of the overcharged amount. Again, having got no reply to its legal notice the complainant has preferred the present complaint seeking refund-claim of Rs 10 Lac besides damages to the tune of Rs 10 Lac as damages etc. The complaint stands duly accompanied by the Affidavit Ex.CW/A deposing its contents and also by Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 the five documents: Money & Mobile Receipts; Legal Notice + 2 postal receipts.
3. Upon summoning, the opposite parties appeared through their respective counsels and filed their separate written statements. The OP1 has primarily objected to maintainability and absence of cause of action. Further, present complaint is sheer misuse and abuse of the process as the complainant has filed a false complaint concealing the true facts and has not come to the court with clean hands. The sole purpose of the complaint is to harass the OP1 and to extract money from him in an endeavor to undue enrichment.
4. On merits, the OP1 has denied use of unfair trade practice as well as the presence of any deficiency in service at its end. Further, sale of apple cell phone @ Rs.67,500/- is duly admitted but @ Rs.800/- less (the discounted price) than the MRP @ Rs.68,300/-. No fraud has ever been played and the present complaint has been filed at the ill-advice of some interested party. The OP1 Vendor has further denied rest all the contents of the complaint and lastly has sought its dismissal with an exemplary costs of Rs One Lac in the interest of justice.
5. Similarly, the OP2 Manufacturing Co. filed its written reply through its counsel and therein preliminarily addressing the contents of the complaint as blatantly false, vexatious, devoid of all merit and filed with malafide intention of just harassing the OP2 Co and to seek undue benefits and unjust enrichment. The complainant is guilty of concealment and suppression of material facts and has come to the court with unclean hands. Lastly, the complaint being an abuse of the due process of law is liable to be dismissed in limine. Further, on merits, the OP2 has referred to the Rule 2 (m) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011 vide which, “ 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”. And further, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Legal Metrology Division vide its Notification # WM-10 (14)/2020 dated 01.04.2020 had instructed all the manufacturers/importers/packagers permitting them to display the change in price as a result of change in the GST Rate on mobile phones from 12% to 18% w e from 01.04.2020. The OP2 Co. has also confirmed that as part of its legal obligation and in compliance to the said notification it had got published/advertised two public notices on 03.04.2020 in two newspapers Navbharat Times and Hindustan Times in order to educate public in general/at large and mobile purchasers, in special. The complainant was explained all this but he turned a deaf ear towards the same and tore away the plastic cover with revised MRP and insisted the box-printed old MRP as correct. Finally, the OP2 has stated that the complainant has failed to satisfy the provisions of section 6 (iv) (b) of the C P Act, 2019, hence liable to dismissal.
- The OP2 Co. in order to support its prosecution of defense has filed the following documents: Affidavit Ex.OP2/1A; Notification Ex.OP2/1 regarding the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011; Letter dated 01.04.2020 (Ex.OP2/2) WM-10(14)2020; Published Public Notices (Ex.OP2/3 & Ex.OP2/4) on enhanced GST Rates from 12% to 18% (01.04.2020)
We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scale and scope of ‘adverse inference’ for those ignored to be produced) in order to determine the respective ‘claims’ as pleaded forth by the opposing litigants in the light of the arguments as advanced by their respective learned counsels representing the respective sides. We observe that the complainant has failed to prove his allegations of overcharging and unfair trade practices etc. On the other hand, the OP1 Vendor and the OP2 Mfg. Co. have proved on record their clean and transparent conduct of the mobile business. The OP2 Co. has systematically (step by step) explained its conduct of genuine business duly based on logic and in compliance with the related Govt. directives vide refreshed notifications and circularized terms.
In the light of the all above, we order for the dismissal of the present complaint as the same is without merit.
9. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (B.S.Matharu)
JUNE 17, 2022. Member.
YP.
