Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/50/2017

Sandeep Narula - Complainant(s)

Versus

Capital Corner - Opp.Party(s)

MP Nayyar

06 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :     50 of 2017

Date of Institution                             :     26.10.2017

Date of Decision:                    :     06.08.2018

Sandeep Narula S/o Ramesh Kumar Narula R/o 277, W. No. 17, Street No.5, Bharat Nagar, Ferozepur City now at present residing at Quarter No.14, Tehsil Complex, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. Capital Corner, Kothi Road Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar, through its Owner/Manager/Partner.
2. Spykar Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. A Wing, 19^th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Goregaon (E), Mumbai through its Manager.
3. Indaco Jeans Pvt. Ltd G-21, Tarapur Industrial Area, MIDC Palghar, Thane, Mumbai through its Manager.

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.A.P.S. RAJPUT, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

For complainant                      :         Sh.M.P. Nayyar, Advocate

For OPs                                   :         Sh.Sanjeev Jain, Advocate

 

ORDER

SH.A.P.S. RAJPUT, PRESIDENT

 

1. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one product from the OP No.1, on 17.08.2017, on discount @50% , given by the OP No.1. The M.R.P. of the said product is Rs.36999/- which is inclusive of all taxes. After giving discount @ 50% , on the M.R.P. of the purchased product, the payable price came to Rs.1849.40, which is inclusive of all taxes, but in addition thereto, the OP charged GST Rs.221.88), on the discounted price of the product. In this way, the complainant paid Rs.2071/-(round off) as consideration amount of the purchased item. The complainant resisted for the said act of the OP but it did not listen to the complainant and he paid the said amount. In this way, the OP defrauded the complainant by charging tax from the complainant illegally, which caused mental and physical agony alongwith extra financial burden on the complainant. It is prayed that the OP may kindly be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.15000/-. Hence this complaint.
2. On notice, the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply, taking preliminary objections that the complainant did not disclose any cause of action.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint.  The present complaint is simply an abuse of the process of this Forum. On merits, it is submitted that as per as the OP-1 has been able to gather the information the complainant is a habitual litigant.  Purchase of Jeans from OP-1 is admitted.  It is also admitted that OP No.1 has charged GST on the purchase of jeans.  Complainant is a literate person and made the payment to OP No.1 after going through the contents of the bill.  The claim of complainant is false, frivolous and baseless.  No amount in excess has been charged from the complainant, however, merely charging of sum of s.221.88 S as GST the allegation suffering of mental tension is unfounded and far fetched conclusion.  It will not be out of place to mention that after filing the complaint, the complainant approached the OP No.1 and told him that he will feel satisfied if a sum of Rs.10,000/- is paid to him and further told that he had filed many such complaints at various places and settled the same after having cash consideration.   After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. On being called to do so, the counsel for complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence. Sh.Naveen Kumar Manager of OP No.1 has tendered his affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith document Annexure A to Annexure-E and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant and counsel for OP No.2 and have also gone through the record carefully.
5. During arguments the contentions of both the parties were similar to its pleadings, so it is no need to reiterate the same. From the tag Ex.C-2, it is evident that the M.R.P. of the purchased product is Rs.3699/-(inclusive of all taxes). On the retail invoice, Ex.C-1, issued by the OP -1, the M.R.P. of the purchased product has also been mentioned as Rs.3699/-. After giving discount of Rs.1849/-, the taxable amount has been mentioned as Rs.221.88. However, the OPs after adding, on this amount has raised the bill for Rs.2071/ -. 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. 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 falling short of “Flat 40% on the MRP would amount to unfair trade practice, as defined in the Act”
6. Since the OP has charged GST on the discounted price of the product, 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. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint against the OPs with a direction to it to refund the amount charged extra from the complainant and also to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to comply the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
7. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated:  06.08.2018

 

  

(Kanwaljeet Singh)       (A.P.S. Rajput)

Member                         President