Case Law Details
Shaik Umar Farooq Vs Flipkart Internet Private Limited (District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
The Complainant ordered Freedom Refined Sunflower Oil pouch, pack of 2 sunflower oil pouches 2000 ml (1000 ml. each) from Flipkart Order ID.No.OD121568984611350000 and the order was successfully delivered on 25/04/2021. The value of the order is Rs.480/- (each oil packet cost Rs.240/-) and the shipping charge is Rs.103/-, total price is 583/-. The Complainant after receiving the order found Flipkart selling more than MRP Price. MRP on the product is Rs.170/- (very hard to see the price as they wiped the MRP0), but he paid Rs.240/- per each packet, which is Rs.70/- more on MRP. So the total Rs.170/- for two packets is Rs.340/-. The Complainant paid Rs.480/- instead of Rs.340/-according to MRP. So, in total Flipkart collected extra Rs.140/- on MRP. The wiping of MRP amounted to an unethical and unfair trade practice which also amounts to deficiency in service. COVID-19 brought suffering the people these days as it is very hard to meet basic needs, such as rice, pulses and oil etc., but the E-Commerce are making cash by selling more than MRP. Hence, the complaint.
The Opposite Parties No.1 (Flipkart internet private limited) and 2 (sellers) are in contract and agreement with the manufacturer and are service providers through e-commerce entity and are bound by the contract between the manufacturer product seller, i.e. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and the consumer and are bound to provide about the information and details about the product to the sellers offering goods. The Opposite Parties come within the purview of the above definitions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with regard to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by them and also the consequences of the same.
In the present complaint, the Opposite Parties have tampered with the original MRP Price of the oil sachet and charged extra amount more than the MRP. The Complainant has not made the manufacturer of the Freedom Refined Sunflower Oil, as one of the Opposite Parties, who originally packaged and sold the product to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The manufacturer would be the best person to clarify with regard to the price details and any modification or alteration of the same. There is tripartite contract between the seller, service provider, i.e. the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and the consumer. As such, the seller and service provider are liable for any defect, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the services provided or good/product sold by them. Therefore, the Opposite Parties have not performed their duties of sellers on market place as laid down in the Consumer Protection E-Commerce Rules, 2020.
In a decision reported in IV (2009) CPJ 8 between Mc.Donalds India Vs. Anupam Tripati, the Hon‟ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi observed that: „No trader/person can charge more than price mentioned on the package – OP sold article for price more than the permissible maximum price – the very connotation printed on the packet goods namely; MRP, which means “Maximum Retail Price” leaves no manner of doubt that no trader or person can charge more than the price mentioned on the package – “means sale of goods or article to an individual or in small quantities directly to the consumers”. The conduct of the appellants squarely falls within the mischief of “Unfair trade practice and deficiency of service” as they sold the article for a price which was more than the permissible maximum price.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
