DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 439 of 21.10.2016
Decided on: 16.8.2017
Navneet Singla S/o Binder Kumar Singla, resident of 4405/2, Chattu Nanu Mal, Near Gur Mandi, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. BLACK APPARELS INDIA LIMITED B.O. SHOP No.GF-14, GROUND FLOOR, OMAXE MALL, PATIALA THROUGH ITS MANAGER.
2. Black Apparels India Ltd. Plot No.89, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Shivin Sharma,Advocate,counsel for the complainant.
Opposite Parties ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Navneet Singla, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) .The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. That on 30.8.2015, the complainant visited the showroom of OP no.1 .At that time OP no.1 displayed at its entrance door discount scheme i.e. BUY ONE AND GET TWO FREE on every purchase of any clothes. The complainant asked from the salesman present in the showroom about the scheme, who told that maximum rate/sale price of one piece out of three pieces will be charged. Persuaded from the scheme, the complainant purchased three T-shirts with the total M.R.P. of Rs.4097/- ( i.e. Rs.1499/-+Rs. 1200/-+ Rs.1200/-).But he was surprised at the cash counter when he was told to make the payment of Rs.1589/- instead of Rs.1499/- the higher M.R.P of one T-shirt out of three. He agitated the matter having apprised OP no.1 that no amount over and above M.R.P. could be charged. Then OP No.1 told him that Rs.90.69 has been charged on account of tax and did not pay any heed to his request. The act and conduct of the OPs not only amounted to deficiency in service but they also indulged in to unfair trade practice, which caused mental tension, physical harassment and monetary loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for a direction to the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses,Rs.2,00,000/- for adopting mal practice and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of the complaint.
3. On being put to notice the OPs failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. From the invoice dated 30.8.2015, Ex.C1, it is evident that the complainant purchased three T-shirts with the M.R.P. of Rs.1499/-, Rs.1299/- and Rs.1299/- respectively. In the said bill, global discount has been mentioned as Rs.2598/- i.e. Rs.1299/-+Rs.1299/-. As per the scheme the OPs have to charge higher MRP of one T-shirt out of three. In this way they have to charge Rs.1499/- from the complainant i.e. higher M.R.P. of one T-Shirt. But, they after having added Rs.90.69 as Tax Amount raised the bill for an amount of Rs.1590/-. It may be stated that no extra amount over and above the M.R.P., printed on the goods could be charged, as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014, M.R.P. has already been included all taxes levied on the goods. Not only this on the tags Exs.C2 to C4, M.R.P. has been mentioned as (Inclusive of all taxes). Thus, by charging extra amount on account of Vat, the OPs indulged into unfair trade practice and are liable to refund the same to the complainant. They are also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith 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 failing 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. 90.69 rounded off Rs.91/- charged extra on account of Vat, 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 litigation expenses.
The O.Ps are further directed to comply the order within a period of 45 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:16.8.2017 NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
