BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.303 of 2017

Date of Instt. 23.08.2017

Date of Decision: 27.02.2018

Anil Kumar S/o Late M.S. Saini R/o House No.2269 Sector 23 C, Chandigarh.

..........Complainant

Versus

Being Human The Mandhana Retail Ventures Ltd. CHS Being Human CHS Jalandhar Curo High Street Ground Floor Shop No.GR20, 21, 36A and 37A 66 Feet Road Lohar Nangal Near Urban Estate Phase 2 Jalandhar Punjab through its Manager or Authorized Representative.

..….…Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Harpreet Saini, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

OP exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant had purchased one product from the OP on 05.08.2017, after paying the consideration amount of Rs.524/-. The original retail invoice dated 05.08.2017 is annexed herewith. The MRP of the said product is Rs.999/-, which inclusive of all taxes and the OP in order to promote the sale of the articles, offered a discount of 50% on the MRP on the said product. That after giving 50% discount on the product, the price of the product came to Rs.499.50/-, which is inclusive of all taxes, but in addition thereto the OP charged GST @ 5%, (State GST 2.5%, which comes to Rs.12.49/- and Central GST 2.5%, which comes to Rs.12.49/-), on the discounted price of the product, which amounts to Rs.24.98/- and the complainant had to pay Rs.524/- for the consideration amount of the said product.

2. The complainant resisted to the above, after seeing the bill, but the OP forced the complainant to pay the final amount of Rs.524/-. The complainant was went unheard and was not left with any other option except to pay the amount of Rs.524/- as the OP said that once bill has been prepared, then complainant has to pay the net payable amount. The action of the OP is against the provisions of the 'Consumer Protection Act'. The complainant purchased the said product from the OP. In this way, the OP defrauded the complainant by charging tax from the complainant illegally, which caused mental and physical agony alongwith extra financial burden on the complainant and as such, there is a deficiency in service as well as negligence in service on the part of the OP and accordingly, this complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP may kindly be directed to return the GST amount of Rs.24.98/- recovered from the complainant and further, OP be directed to pay compensation on account of mental and physical harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.55,000/- and be also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, but despite service, the OP did not come present and ultimately, the OP was proceeded against exparte

4. In order to prove his exparte claim, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith Copy of the Original Bill as Ex.C-1 and closed the evidence.

5. We have gone through the written argument submitted by the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6. After analyzing the written argument as well as from the pleading of the party, it reveals that the case of the complainant is simple that he purchased one product from the OP, which having MRP Rs.999/- and thereon, the OP had offered a discount of 50% and as such, the complainant has to pay only Rs.499.50/-, but the OP has charged excess amount from the complainant in the name of GST @ 5%, which comes to Rs.24.98/- and as such, there is a negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and claimed the refund of said excess amount of Rs.24.98/- as well as compensation and litigation expenses.

7. We have considered the case of the complainant and find that the MRP of the said product is Rs.999/-, means it inclusive all taxes and thereupon, the OP had given 50% discount, means the complainant has to pay only Rs.499.50/-, which is inclusive of all taxes, but the OP had charged a sum of Rs.524/- from the complainant, which is very well shown in the original Invoice Ex.C-1, wherefrom, it reveals that the OP has charges GST 5% i.e. Rs.24.98/-, which is excessive amount charged from the complainant because as per settled law, the Shopkeeper cannot charge excess of any amount upon MRP, MRP means inclusive of all taxes and it is maximum retail price of the said product and if any discount is given on MRP, then the same has to bear by OP and OP is not at liberty to again charge any tax, GST or any other, after giving a discount on the price of MRP, but in this case the OP has charged excess amount of Rs.24.98/-, which is against the law and in support of this version, we like to refer a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, decided in Revision Petition No.3156 of 2016, title “Benetton India Private Limited Vs. Ravinder Singh. We further like to refer an other pronouncement of UT State Commission, Chandigarh, decided in Consumer Complaint No.CC/400/2015, decided on 14.01.2016, title “Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs. M/s ADI Sports etc.

8. If, we see the case of the complainant in the light of above judgments, then apparently, it is clearly established that the MRP is inclusive of all taxes and retailer can sell at a price below the MRP, because MRP is the maximum retail price allowed for that commodity and not the actual price and even the retailer can reduce his margin from the MRP, but the retailer cannot charge price higher than the market price, so, if any charged above the MRP under the pretext of tax is also not legally chargeable and therefore, over charging is clear cut unfair trade practice and therefore, complaint of the complainant succeeds and accordingly, the same is partly accepted and OP is directed to refund the excess charges taken from the complainant on the name of GST i.e. Rs.24.98/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 05.08.2017, till realization and OP is further directed to pay compensation for mental and physical harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.7000/- and OP is also directed to pay litigation expenses to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.3000/-. If the OP failed to pay the aforesaid compensation and litigation expenses amount i.e. Rs.10,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, then again the complainant will also entitled to get interest thereon also @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint, till realization. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

27.02.2018 Member President