Orissa

Cuttak

CC/107/2022

Santosh Jena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,BATA - Opp.Party(s)

self

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                C.C.No.107/2022

Santosh Jena,

Resident At:Annapurna Lane,

Pithapur,Cuttack,

Near Ganesh Temple,Pin-753001         ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.                        

 

1. Branch Manager,

                    BATA,Opp. G.P.O,Buxibazar-753001.

 

       1.M./s. Bata India Limited,

27B,CamacStreet,First Floor,

Kolkata,West Bengal-700016....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    04.06.2022

Date of Order:  01.06.2023

 

For the complainant:            Self.

For the O.Ps   :         Mr. A.K.Beura,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

 

Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in nutshell is that the complainant had purchased a sandal (foot wear) having HSN Code:8729790070 and Article no.872-9790 from BATA, shop at Opp. G.P.O,Buxibazar,Cuttack on 5.3.2022.  The label in the said sandal reflected MRP 349 INR whereas the billing of the showroom reflected additional charge of 23/- INR.  Thus, the total price of the sandal was 372/- INR which the complainant was compelled to pay.  The complainant when questioned about the same to the Sales Executive Mr. Rama Kanta Pradhan about such discrepancy, who had replied that the said price was provided by the Company itself.  The complainant was subsequently told that the MRP charged extra was towards the rate of increase in the GST on the footwear by the notification of Govt. of India.  Being aggrieved, the complainant had approached this Commission seeking compensation of Rs.40,000/- from the O.Ps alongwith a cost of Rs.5000/- towards the cost of litigation.

          The complainant together with his complaint petition has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.Ps have however contested this case and have filed their written version conjointly.  According to them, the case of the complainant is not maintainable as because the complainant has filed this case with a malafide intention and ulterior motive in order to have illegal gain only.  According to them, the increase in the GST @ 5% to 12% was effective from 1.1.2022 for which the revised GST was payable with selling price.  Accordingly, the selling price of Rs.332.14 became Rs.372/-.  Thus according to them, they had not cheated the complainant in any manner nor there was any deficiency in their service or practice of unfair trade by them.  Accordingly, they have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as filed.

          Together with their written version, the O.Ps have filed copies of several documents including the notification copy of the Govt. of India and copies of connecting letters thereto.  The O.Ps have also filed copies of Newspapers showing that they had published by way of “Public Notice” as regards to the enhancement of the GST on the selling cost of the items of them.

3.      Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

          i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

                               ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they had practised any unfair trade ?

                               iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.ii.

     Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue in this case, is taken up  first for consideration here.

After going through the averments of the complaint petition, the contents of the written version and copies of connecting documents as available in this case, it is noticed that the crux of the issue is that though the purchased sandal(footwear)of the complainant reflected through its       lable to be of MRP as 349/- INR, the complainant was compelled to pay 372/ INR.In this context, while going through the documents as attached by the O.Ps alongwith their written version, it is noticed that infact the notification indicates about the rise in the GST charged by the Govt. of India and accordingly as per procedure, the O.Ps had published the same in various Newspapers.  Thus, the additional charge of Rs.23/- is only taken by the O.Ps since because there was hike in the GST price as notified by Govt. of India.  The same was also duly published in the newspapers by the O.Ps for knowledge of the public/customers.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency in service nor practice of any unfair trade by the O.Ps in this case.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;

                                                         

                                                             ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 1^st day of June,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.     

                                                                                                 Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                        President

 

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                          Member