Khetgiri vs Bhagwati Mobiles

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 05.11.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 114/2012 in which order dated 29.05.2012, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaisalmer (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 11/2012 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum.

While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant and the Respondent-1 (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent in the said FA/114/2012 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was Complainant and Respondent-1 was OP before the District Forum in the CC no. 11/2012. Respondent-2 was not a party before District Forum and State Commission.

Notice was issued to the Respondent. Due to absence of Respondent despite notice, they were proceeded ex-parte. Petitioner filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 29.08.2023.

Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:-

The complainant purchased a mobile set, specifically the Spice M-5180 (black and golden), from the shop of the OP on 20.11.2011. On the same day, the prescribed cost of the mobile set was Rs. 1782/-, but the OP had written a rate of Rs. 1857/- on the invoice and added VAT of Rs. 92.46, thereby charging the complainant Rs. 1950/- in total. Subsequently, the complainant discovered through the internet that the actual rate of the mobile set was Rs. 1782.14/-. Upon realizing the discrepancy, the complainant quickly informed the OP about the overcharging on the same day of purchase. However, the OP failed to take any corrective action. Despite sending a registered notice on 26.11.2011, requesting the return of the excess amount charged, the complainant received no response. Consequently, the complainant filed the complaint in District Forum.

Vide Order dated 29.05.2012, in the CC no. 11/2012 of the District Forum has dismissed the complaint.

Aggrieved by the said Order dated 29.05.2012 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 05.11.2018 in FA/114/2012 has upheld the District Forum’s order and dismissed the appeal.

Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 05.11.2018 of the State Commission mainly on following ground:

The State Commission erred in designating the mobile company Spice as the Opposite Party and in neglecting to question or afford due consideration to the company's advertisement, which promoted an updated rate with an 11% discount on the original price of 1999/-, resulting in a reduced price of 1782/-.

Heard counsel of Petitioner. Respondent is proceeded ex-parte. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, and records of State Commission and District Forum are summed up below.

The counsel for petitioner/complainant asserted that the complainant purchased one mobile Spice M-5180 (black and golden) on 20.11.2011, for which the respondent/OP charged an amount of Rs.1,950/-, exceeding the rate mentioned for the said mobile. This excess charge constitutes unfair trade practices and deficiency in service. It is a common industry practice for sellers to lower prices of commodities over time for sales promotion. When prices are reduced, products are sold at the reduced price. The complainant also purchased another mobile set, Spice M-940 Gold, for a price lower than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP), demonstrating the OP's inconsistency in pricing. The District Consumer Forum erred in dismissing the complaint based on the MRP printed on the mobile set's cover without considering price revisions. The State Commission also erred in dismissing the appeal without providing a reasoned order, citing unjustified arguments about differing MRPs in different shops. It is prayed that the orders of the State Commission and District Consumer Forum be set aside, and the complaint be allowed, directing the OP to refund the excess amount charged, along with compensation for mental hardship and litigation costs.

Before the State Commission, the OP has contended that the sold mobile set was priced according to the rate listed on it. The mobile set was not sold to the complainant at a price higher than what was indicated on it; rather, it was sold at the correct sale price. The complaint is as an attempt to unlawfully harass the OP. In the current competitive market environment, price escalations are common. According to the rate list issued by the company, the rate of the aforementioned mobile set is stated to be Rs. 1999/-, which is printed on the set itself. Therefore, the contention made by the complainant that a rate higher than the prescribed one was charged should be considered false, and the complaint should be dismissed.

We have carefully gone through the orders of State Commission, District Forum, and other relevant records. In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the fora below against the Petitioner herein. Both the State Commission and District Forum have issued well-reasoned orders, duly and appropriately addressing the issue raised by Petitioner. We are in agreement with the findings of State Commission and District Forum.

As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577] held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. "

We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, the RP is dismissed.

The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.