Charging more than MRP costs e-commerce company Rs 13,465
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, January 14
Charged more than the MRP (maximum retail price), city-resident Teginder Singh Randhawa filed a case against Delhi-based Amazon Sellers Services Private Limited, Karnataka-based Amazon Sellers Services Private Limited and Laptech Solutions Private Limited in Pune.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I has asked the e-commerce firm to refund Rs 1,465 and pay an amount of Rs 7,000 to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment to him, along with Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses.
On February 17, 2017, Randhawa had purchased a laptop from Amazon (an online website), which was shown to have the price of Rs 30,712.26, including additional packaging cost and VAT, thus making it a buy worth Rs 32,555. However, on opening the package, Randhawa found that the MRP written on the laptop box was Rs 31,090.
It has been alleged that although the MRP was Rs 31,090, 6 per cent VAT amounting to Rs 1,845 was charged on the selling price of the laptop, which is worth Rs 30,712.26, thus making the total (selling price + VAT) more than the MRP of the product. Hence, Randhawa filed a consumer complaint praying for a refund of the excess amount, along with compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
Opposite parties Amazon Sellers Services Private Limited, Delhi, and Karnataka-based Amazon Sellers Services Private Limited contested the complaint and filed their joint statement. They pleaded that the product was sold by Laptech Solutions Private Limited and the invoice thereof has also been generated by the seller.
Laptech Solutions filed a separate written statement, pleading that the laptop was sold to Randhawa on the price, which he agreed to purchase and that there was no difference in the price offered on the website and the invoice sent to the complainant.
In their judgement, forum president Shri Rattan Singh Thakur and member Surjeet Kaur were of the opinion that Amazon Sellers Services Private Limited cannot be allowed to take a shield, to evade their liability on the ground that sellers are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website.
“For the sake of repetition, it is important to note that the opposite parties being online portal must shoulder the responsibility of saving their customers and if they cannot own such kind of responsibility, then there is no point to offer themselves openly to consumers with such authenticity for online shopping,” the order reads.
What order reads
“For the sake of repetition, it is important to note that the opposite parties being online portal must shoulder the responsibility of saving their customers and if they cannot own such kind of responsibility, then there is no point to offer themselves openly to consumers with such authenticity for online shopping,” the order reads.
