DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.301 of 4.8.2017
Decided on: 3.1.2018
Surinder Jit Singh S/o SurjitSingh, R/o Street No.17, New Professor Colony, Near 66 Feet Road, Opposite Punjabi University, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Adidas , Sammati Enterprises Shop No.2, Kainthal Complex, Bhupindra Road, Patiala through its Manager/Proprietor.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Surjit Singh, Authorized Representative of the
complainant.
Opposite party ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Complainant Sh.Surinderjit Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.).
-
-
-
-
6. From the perusal of the invoice, Ex.C1, it is evident that the M.R.P. of the product purchased by the complainant has been mentioned as Rs.1599/-. After giving discount of Rs.639.60 @40%, the amount has been mentioned as Rs.959.40. However, the OP after leveling tax @ 6.05% i.e. Rs.58.04, raised the bill for an amount of Rs.1017/-. In the copy of tag,Ex.C2, the M.R.P. of the purchased product said has been mentioned as Rs.1599/-( inclusive of all taxes). It may be stated that as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014, no extra amount over and above the M.R.P., printed on the goods could be charged, even the same has been sold on discount, as M.R.P. has already been included all taxes levied on the goods. Since the OP has charged tax on the discounted price of the product, from the complainant, in violation of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014, therefore, it has not only committed deficiency in service but has also indulged in to unfair trade practice. The OP is thus not only liable to refund the amount charged on account of tax but is also liable to compensate the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment . It is also liable to pay litigation expenses. In the case titled as M/s Aeroclub (woodland) Versus Rakesh Sharma, Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016, decided on 04 Jan 2017, the Hon’ble National Commission has already held that “In our opinion, therefore, the defence of the Petitioners that they had charged VAT as per law is of no avail in so far as the issue at hand, viz. misleading advertisement, resulting in unfair trade practice, is concerned. We are in complete agreement with the Fora below that any discount falling short of “Flat 40% on the MRP would amount to unfair trade practice, as defined in the Act”.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.P. in the following manner:
- To refund Rs.58.04, charged extra on account of tax , to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation, for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.5,000/-towards costs of litigation
The O.P. is further directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 3.1.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
