DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.826 of 2017

                                               Date of institution:  29.09.2017                                             Date of decision   :  12.10.2018

Amandeep Singh son of Balwinder Singh, resident of K.No.86, Phase-6, Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

Casio Exclusive Showroom, c/o Chawla Watch House, Showroom No.G-68A, Ground Floor (Level-1), North Country Mall, Kharar, Mohali through its Proprietor/Incharge/Manager.

                                                               ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri  Amit Jindal, counsel for the OP .

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir  President.

Order

               Complainant, after visiting outlet of OP situate in North Country Mall, Kharar, purchased wrist watch at discounted price. This watch was having MRP of Rs.2,195/- (inclusive of all taxes). Mention of same is made in the retail invoice bill of this wrist watch issued by OP. Even the same fact is mentioned in the tag of the watch. OP issued retail invoice bill of Rs.2,195/- including Rs.480.16 N.P. as GST @ 28%. Complainant raised objection of charging of this GST, but officials of OP claimed that GST is chargeable. No notification issued by the Taxation Authorities regarding charging of extra GST on the discounted MRP could be shown by officials of OP to complainant. By claiming that OP adopted unfair trade practice, this complaint filed for seeking refund of the extra charged amount of Rs.480.16 N.P. as GST with interest. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/- more claimed. Direction even sought to OP to furnish copy of the notification or regulation issued by Taxation Authorities favouring charging of extra GST on MRP during discount period.

2.             In reply submitted by OPs it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint is bad due to non joiner and misjoinder of necessary parties because CASIO Company, of which OP has franchise, is not arrayed as a party and moreover the complaint alleged to be false, vexatious and frivolous. Retail invoice relied upon by complainant does not pertain to sale period or of the period of offering discount on the sold merchandise. It is claimed that perusal of invoice will show that columns worked out therein shows calculations of retail price or of formula for calculating the exact cost price alongwith rate of GST. Various columns in the invoice depicting exact figures of transactions are self explanatory. The nomenclature used as Disc.% -21.9750 is basically a shorter form of Discovery %-21.8750 which is used for deriving out the exact amount of merchandise in the present case. It is claimed that exact cost price of the wrist watch comes to Rs.1714.84 N.P. on which GST at applicable rate of 28% of amount of Rs.480.16 N.P. is chargeable. Same thing has been done for charging total price of Rs.2195/- and as such it is claimed that no overcharging has been done. The complaint alleged to be filed for maligning the reputation of OP or for exerting pressure for getting undue benefit. Complainant is trying to subvert and pollute the pristine stream of justice. There was no sale discounts and promotion of any sort on the sold watch to complainant at the outlet of OP during the mentioned period. List of articles on sale by CASIO Company during the mentioned period is annexed with the reply as proof. Complainant himself is a speculator and has not approached the Forum with clean hands. Complainant after paying the amount stopped from filing this complaint. Had the present case been a case of sale or promotion, at the show room of OP, then complainant would have clicked the picture of sale banner, confetti, promo bearers and sale stickers. The complaint alleged to be filed without any supporting documents. Admittedly complainant purchased wrist watch, but allegations of indulging in unfair trade practice denied in view of above referred assertions. Complainant purchased the watch in question with his own free will and volition after visiting the mall which is visited by persons of taste and having education. Other allegations of complaint denied, one by one each.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith document Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2  and thereafter his counsel closed evidence. On the other hand counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Amit Chawla, Manager of OP alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and thereafter closed evidence. 

4.             Written arguments submitted by OP and not by complainant. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Tag Ex.C-2 shows that MRP of the wrist watch in question bearing model AE-1200WH-1BVDF was Rs.2,195/- inclusive of all taxes. Model D098 is also mentioned on this tag. No material has been produced on record by complainant to establish that any offer of discount was given and nor it is mentioned in the complaint or in the submitted affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 as to what was the percentage of discount offered on the wrist watch in question purchased by complainant through invoice Ex.C-1. Being so, submission advanced by counsel for OP has force that actually watch in question having MRP of Rs.2,195/- inclusive of all taxes was sold without any offer of discount. This submission also has force, if looked in the light of document produced on record by OP as Ex.OP-3 alongwith enclosed sheet of price list.               

6.             After going through document Ex.OP-3, it is made out that discount upto 20% was offered on few models, but same was offered upto 30% on some other selected watches as per details of the models mentioned in the list annexed with Ex.OP-3. Duration for tertiary sales was of weeks 1 to 3 as 16.09.2017 – 17.09.2017; 22.09.2017 - 24.09.2017 and 29.09.2017 - 02.10.2017 as mentioned in Ex.OP-3. Perusal of invoice Ex.C-1 shows that watch in question was purchased by complainant on 17.09.2017 and as such it was purchased during operation of first week period mentioned in Ex.OP-3. Model of watch mentioned in invoice is D098 003816295. However, mention of this model is not at all made in the list annexed with Ex.OP-3 at all. List annexed with Ex.OP-3 makes mention of the products with serial code, on which discount with certain percentage under Diwali scheme was offered. As mention of model with Sr.No.D098 referred above not at all made in the list annexed with Ex.OP-3 and as such certainly submission advanced by counsel for OP has force that no discount offer was given by OP on the wrist watch in question purchased by complainant on 17.09.2017 through invoice Ex.C-1. It is on account of this that complainant failed to disclose percentage of discount offered by OP specifically. In such circumstances, it has to be found as to why words Disc. % finds mention in invoice Ex.C-1.

7.             Perusal of Ex.OP-2 reveals that for       ascertaining that price in excess of MRP including GST is not charged from any customer, formula was worked out for mentioning as if GST amount is equal to original cost [original cost x 100 128]. It is on the basis of this formula that it was discovered as if GST is of Rs.480.15625. In view of this, submission advanced by counsel for OP has force that words Disc. percentage mentioned as 21.8750 in Ex.C-1 was for mentioning that this is discovered amount of GST. After deducting this discounted amount of GST, price of watch sold through invoice is mentioned as Rs.1714.84 N.P. in Ex.C-1 and as such it is obvious that price of the wrist watch sold by OP to complainant, charged as Rs.2,195/- from complainant, is not in excess of MRP including GST. This complaint as such certainly is filed by complainant on mis notion as if words Disc. percentage mentioned in Ex.C-1 as the discount percentage. Rather this Disc. percentage makes mention of discovered percentage of GST amount for finding that the charged amount of Rs.2,195/- do not go in excess of MRP because MRP as per tag Ex.C-2 is inclusive of all taxes. In view of this certainly it is not a case in which GST charged in excess of MRP. Rather it is a case in which no discount offer given on the watch in question by OP to any customer during period in which this watch was purchased by complainant from OP. So this complaint being misconceived, merits dismissal, but without any order as to costs, in view of peculiar circumstances of the case.  

8.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs.   Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

October 12, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member