DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 394 of 3.10.2018

                                      Decided on:                    31.7.2019

Varun Batra age 30 years S/o Rajendra Batra R/o House No.556 Sector 25, Panchkula.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Cantabil Retail India Limited (Patiala) Shop No.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, Advocate: Counsel for complainant.

                                       Opposite Party: Ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                    B.S.DHALIWAL, MEMBER

1. This complaint is filed by Varun Batra (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against  Cantabil Retail India Limited (hereinafter referred to as OP) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased three pair of socks from the OP on 27.11.2017 after paying the consideration amount of Rs.208/-(rounded off). The MRP of the said products is Rs.99/-each which is inclusive of all taxes and the OP in order to promote the sale of the articles offered a discount of 33.33% on the MRP of the said products. That after giving 33.33% discount on the products the price of the products came to Rs.198/- which is inclusive of all taxes but in addition thereto the OP charged GST @5% (State GST 2.5% which come to Rs.4.95/- and Central GST2.5% which come to Rs.4.95/-) on the discounted price of the products which amount comes to Rs.9.90/- and the complainant had to pay Rs.208/-(rounded off) of the said products.
3. It is contended that the complainant resisted to the above after seeing the bill but the OP forced the complainant to pay the final amount of Rs.208/-. The pleadings of the complainant went unheard and was not left with any other option but to pay the amount of Rs.208/- as OP said that if one’s bill has been made complainant has to pay the net payable amount.
4. It is further contended 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 OP charged tax from the complainant illegally which caused mental and physical agony alongwith extra financial burden on the complainant. OP earned  money by illegal means from the consumers.
5. By this complaint, the complainant has prayed that OP be directed to pay compensatory costs for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses as well as excess charged amount on account of GST alongwith Rs.30009.90/- and the complaint be allowed
6. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP. Despite service it failed to appear and as such proceeded against ex-parte.
7. The ld. counsel for the complainant was afforded opportunity to produce his evidence.
8. In support of his case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 original invoice, Ex.C2 copy of tag and closed the evidence of the complainant.
9. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
10. Ld. Counsel of the complainant reiterated the contentions as has already been taken in complaint to support his case. To support his contentions, the ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in “First Appeal No.759 of 2017 titled as Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Aasthaa Negi decided on 15/06/2018 and First appeal No.27 of 2018 titled as Paramjit Singh Walia Versus Levi’s Retail Square decided on 12/09/2018”. It may be stated that as per section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2014, no extra amount over and above the M.R.P., printed on the goods could be charged, even the same has been sold on discount, as M.R.P. has already been included  all taxes levied on the goods. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in “The Branch Manager M/s Shirt Palace Branch Black Bird Showroom Vs. Chandru H.C.” Appeal no.3723 of 2011, decided on 16.01.2014 held that charging of VAT on the discounted price is unfair trade practice. Similar view has been adopted by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 01.09.2015, titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and others” wherein it was held that OP cannot charge VAT on the discounted price. The matter has also been settled by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as “Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju” 2018 Law Suit(CO)22 wherein it was held that advertisement in the above form is nothing, but an allurement to gullible consumers to buy the advertise merchandise at a cheaper bargain price, which itself was not intended to be the real bargaining price. Therefore, it tantamounts to unfair trade practice. The National Commission has held that charging of VAT extra after reducing the MRP of product by the percentage of discount is unfair trade practice. This Commission has also held a similar view in First Appeal No.759 of 2017 decided on 15.06.2018 titled as “Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd vs. Aasthaaa Negi”.
11. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased three pair of socks.  The perusal of tag Ex.C-2 reveals that the MRP of one pair of socks  is Rs.99/- (inclusive  of all taxes) From the Invoice Ex.C-1 it is established that after 33.33% discount of the said  items/ goods the payable amount of  total socks comes to Rs.198/- but the OP after having added Rs.9.90 on account of CGST and SGST raised the bill for an amount of Rs.208(rounded  off )/- which was paid by the complainant to the opposite party.
12. 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 not only committed deficiency in service but also indulged in to unfair trade practice. The OP is thus liable to refund the amount charged on account of GST and also liable to  compensate the complainant for causing  mental agony and physical harassment. It is also liable to pay litigation expenses.
13.  The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of which the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties agree and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made there are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of proof can substitute pleadings, which are the foundation of the claim of the parties. The Opposite parties did not appear before this Forum despite service and presumption of service was raised and it was proceeded against ex-parte. Thus, the evidence adduced by the complainant remains un-rebutted. In view of this all the averments made in the complaint are deemed to have been admitted by the opposite parties and an adverse inference is to be drawn against them. Since no reply had been filed therefore the offer of discount has not been controverted.
14. From the foregoing discussions, net conclusion is that the opposite party has charged CGST & SGST over the discounted amount and failure on the part of the OP to redress the genuine grievances of the complainant resulted into filing the present complaint.
15. Thus allowing the complaint we direct the opposite party as under:

1. To refund Rs. 9.90 (rounding Rs.10/-) charged on account of CGST &  

SGST to the complainant.

   ii          To pay Rs.2000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and

      physical harassment including cost of litigation.

16. The Opposite party is directed to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from its receipt. 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.
17. The case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

ANNOUNCED  

DATED: 31.7.2019        

                                       B. S. DHALIWAL                       INDERJEET KAUR

                                              MEMBER                              MEMBER