Haryana

Ambala

CC/163/2019

Mamta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Big Bazaar - Opp.Party(s)

Parnav Handa

01 Oct 2019

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.:  163 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution          :   03.05.2019.

                                                          Date of decision   :   01.10.2019.

 

Mamta daughter of Sh. Narsingh Jarwal, resident of House No.2004/9, Sector-32C, Chandigarh -160030.

                                                                                       …. Complainant.                                                   Versus

Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.), Plot No.180, Minerva Complex, Rai Market, 123, Palledar Mohalla, Football Chowk, Ambala Cantt, Haryana 133001, through its Store Manager.

                    …. Opposite Party

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Shri Pranav Handa, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Ajay Chawla, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant 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 ‘OP’), praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To refund Rs.69.96/- charged on account of CGST & SGST alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of payment, till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her.
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
   382.  

Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

                   In nutshell, the brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one Waist Coat from the OP vide memo No.200 dated 01.10.2018 by paying consideration amount of Rs.1469/-. The MRP of the waist coat was Rs.1,999/-, which was inclusive of all taxes. A discount of Rs.599.70/- was given on the MRP of the waist coat. After deducting discount of Rs.599.70/-, the price of the said waist coat comes out to be Rs.1399.30/-, but in addition to that, the OP charged CGST & SGST @ 2.5% each, total amounting Rs.69.96/- and raised the bill of Rs.1469/-, despite the fact that the price of the waist coat was inclusive of all taxes. After seeing the bill, complainant raised the objection, but the OP forced her to pay the bill amount of Rs.1469/-, as the OP said that, once the bill has been raised, then she has to pay the net payable amount. By charging SGST & CGST extra on the discounted price, the OP has committed deficiency in service and has caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written version and have raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability. On merits, it is stated that the complainant was well aware of the fact by advertisement board displayed inside the OP store that GST amount is supposed to be paid extra on discounted amount of the product. The requirement of MRP (Maximum Retail Price) on the label of the Product i.e. readymade garments is under Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rules, 2011, whereas, GST is charged on the selling price of the product. It is also stated that the amount charged on account of GST has already been deposited with the Government of Punjab and Union Government of India. The GST amount collected on discounted MRP from the complainant, has been deposited with Government Deptt. during filing of GST returns. When the products are sold on MRP to customers, GST amount is not separately charged from the customers. The products at the said store are sold either on MRP or on discounted amount and in both the cases, GST is levied on the Sale Value/Price of the Product which is accordingly paid to respectively Government by monthly Challans. There is no deficiency in service on its part and the present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

3.                The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 & C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Shri Amresh Kumar, Executive, Big Bazaar, Ambala as Annexure OP-A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 Annexure C-1 is the invoice dated 01.10.2018, whereby, the complainant purchased one waist coat from the OP. From the said invoice it is evident that the OP, after giving discount of Rs.599.70/- and after adding GST has raised the bill for an amount of Rs.1469/-. In the said bill the amount of GST (CGST, SGST) has been mentioned as Rs.78.71/-, but actually the OP charged Rs.69.96/- (round off 70/-) as GST. In the Price tag Annexure C-2, it is specifically mentioned that the Maximum Retail Price (hereinafter referred to as “MRP”) of the Waist Coat in question is of Rs.1999/- (inclusive of all taxes). As per Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2014, the ‘MRP” means ‘such price at which the consumer goods shall be sold in retail and such price shall include all taxes, levied on the goods’. Since, the OP has charged GST 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 committed deficiency in service and is thus, liable to refund the amount of Rs.70/- charged on account of GST and is also liable to compensate the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment to her, alongwith litigation expenses. In the case of M/s Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju, First Appeal No.A/136/2017, decided on 23.05.2017, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, has held that “no one can charge more than the M.R.P. and M.R.P. includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all the taxes, then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-

1. To refund Rs.70/-, charged on account of GST, to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

The OP is further directed to comply with the order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 01.10.2019

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)    (Ruby Sharma)           (Neena Sandhu)                       Member                           Member                     President