DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.149 of 16.4.2018

                                      Decided on:   18.9.2019

Satyavir Malik age 55 S/o Abhay Ram  R/o House No.556, Sector -25, Panckula. 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Cantabil Retail India Limited (Patiala) Shop 10 Badunagar, Bhupindra Road, Patiala through its Manager or authorized representative.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt.Inderjeet Kaur: Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal:    Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Harpreet Saini ,Adv. counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Shekhar Kamal,Adv.counsel for the OP.                          

 ORDER

                                    B.S.DHALIWAL,MEMBER    

1. This complaint is filed by Satyavir Malik (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Cantabil Retail India Limited (hereinafter referred to as OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased one product from the OP on 13.8.2017 after paying the consideration amount of Rs.188/- (rounded off). The MRP of the said product was Rs.299/- which is inclusive of all taxes and the OP in order to promote the sale of the articles offered a discount of 40% on the MRP of the said product. That after giving 40% discount on the product the price of the product came to Rs.179.40 which is inclusive of all taxes but in addition thereto the OP charged GST @5% (State GST 2.5% which came to Rs.4.49/- and Central GST 2.5% which came to Rs.4.49) on the discounted price of the product which amounted to Rs.8.98/- and the complainant had to pay Rs.188/-(rounded off) for the consideration amount of said product.
3. It is alleged that the complainant resisted to the above after seeing the bill but the OP forced the complainant to pay the final amount of Rs.188/- and was not left with any other option but to pay the amount of Rs.188/- as OP said that if one’s bill has been made, complainant has to pay the net payable amount.
4. It is also alleged that the OP was duty bound not to charge GST from any consumer including the complainant since the MRP of a product  includes all taxes including GST. The action of the OP is against the provisions of 2(1)(c)(i) & (iv) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
5. On these back ground of the facts, the complainant prayed for the refund of the amount charged extra on account of G.S.T. and also to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.60,000/- for mental agony and harassment. Hence this complaint.
6. Upon notice, OP appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply. In the reply, preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the complaint is nothing but just an abuse of judicial process as the complainant has concealed material facts. It is alleged that the OP has charged extra tax amount but as per GST department and its rules and regulations, “a company cannot charge GST over and above MRP, but if a company offers any discount, then the company can charge GST over such amount derived after discount”. Therefore, it is the GST department which permits that the OP can charge tax over the discounted amount. Moreover all the advertisements and posters etc. of the OP company states that “GST extra”. Therefore, the OP is not doing any act which is against law.
7. On merits, it is stated that since no excess amount has been charged by the OP so no question of its refund arises. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. The parties were offered opportunity to produce their evidence.
9. The ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant and Ex.C1 original bill, Ex.C2 tag of the purchased product  and closed the evidence.
10. The   ld. counsel for the OP tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Basant Goyal, authorized signatory of the OP, Ex.OP1 copy of resolution and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12. Parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.  It is further submitted by the complainant that the bill, Ex.C1 was issued by the OP on 13.8.2017. It proves that the complainant purchased the aforesaid item from the OP. Admittedly the OP has charged the GST.  The tag Ex.C2 shows the MRP is Rs.299/-.It is well settled that the MRP includes all the taxes etc. Even otherwise the OP has pleaded that the OP can charge GST in case of discount but no such rules and regulations/notification is brought on record. Therefore, the only conclusion is that the OP illegally has charged the amount under the garb of GST, which amounts to unfair trade practice.
13. Now coming to the question regarding compensation. The complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.60,000/-. Legal position regarding amount of compensation has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, National Commission and State Commission in number of authorities. In latest judgment titled as Chief Administrative Huda & Anr. Vs. Shakuntla Devi, pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In Paragraph No.12 of this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under:-

“12) the sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof of loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of opposite party. Once the said conditions are satisfied, the Consumer Forum would have to decide the quantum of compensation to which the consumer is entitled. There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury. There is a duty cast on the Consumer Forum to take into account all relevant factors for arriving at the compensation to be paid”.

14.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is allowed.OP is ordered to pay Rs.2000/- as cost & compensation to the complainant alongwith excess charged amount of Rs.8.98 (rounded of Rs.9/-), within the period of two months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

The complaint could not be decided with the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:18.9.2019                                             

                                           B.S.DHALIWAL                  INDERJEET KAUR

                                           MEMBER                              MEMBER