Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

In filing this Appeal, the Order dated 05-07-2017 of the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-III (South), passed in CC/463/2016, has been put under the scrutiny of this Commission by Smt. Chandana Barman, the Proprietress of M/s The Password.  Incidentally, by such order, the instant complaint case was dismissed by the Ld. District Forum.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that, based on the quotation issued by the OP No. 2, the Complainant made due payment for purchasing one Printer machine together with its ancillaries.  The grievance of the Complainant is that, the OP No. 2 not only reneged on its commitment to provide scanner stand and hard disc for the scanner, she was overcharged by the OP No. 2.  Complaint lodged in this regard with the OPs since fallen on deaf ears, the complaint case was filed.

The OP No. 1 did not contest the case.

By filing WV, the OP No. 2 denied all the material allegation of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

Notice was duly served upon the Respondent No. 2.  However, it did not turn up to defend its case before us.  Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 were heard through their respective Ld. Advocates and documents on record gone through thoroughly.

We afraid, no such documentary proof is forthcoming before us to show that the cost of scanner stand and hard disc was included in the price quoted by the Respondent No. 2 for the Printer machine.  Accordingly, by turning down this prayer of the Appellant, it seems, the Ld. District Forum committed no legal infirmity.

However, we cannot appreciate the view of the Ld. District Forum in respect of alleged overbilling being done by the Respondent No. 2.

Admittedly, the Respondent No. 2 quoted a price of Rs. 5,14,500/- (inclusive of VAT) for the ‘Epson Sure Colour SC-T5270 MFP’ vide its quotation dated 05-05-2015.  However, in the Tax Invoice, the price of aforesaid printer machine together with Scanner and Cartridge was mentioned as Rs. 4,54,650/- (inclusive of VAT). 

It is though argued by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 that the residual amount was adjusted towards delivery, installation charge, etc. principle of probity demands that all pricing details remain above board.  In case, that was indeed the case, it ought to have due reflection in the quotation as well as the tax invoice, which is not done here. No such evidence is put forth on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 to show that the Appellant was ever intimated about such charges. 

Further, we notice that notwithstanding the MRP of MFP Scanner was Rs.  1,90,099/-, Respondent No. 2 showed the basic price of this scanner in its Tax Invoice as 1,97,000/-Not only this, it further charged 5% output VAT over this sum.  Similarly, though the MRP of the subject Printer machine was Rs. 2,34,249/-, in the tax invoice, the basic price of printer was shown as 2,34,000/- and over this sum, output VAT @ 5% was levied. 

It is simply not tenable.  Law of the land does not permit any retailer to charge a single farthing over and above the MRP of a product (which is inclusive of all taxes).  Needless to say, it was a clear act of indulgence in unfair trade practice by the Respondent No. 2.

Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 though tried hard to shrug off any responsibility in the matter contending inter alia that the Appellant did not seek any specific relief against it, we find that though the Appellant courted its attention towards the illegal activities of the Respondent No. 2 on numerous occasions, it did not care to come to the rescue of a hapless customer by taking up the matter sternly with the errant dealer. This is highly condemnable.

Thus, we find enough merit in this Appeal to set aside the impugned order.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest in part against the Respondents with a cost of Rs. 30,000/- being jointly/severally payable by the Respondents to the Appellant.  Respondent No. 2 shall refund the excess amount of Rs. 88,052/- [Rs. 5,14,500 – (Rs. 2,34,249 + Rs. 1,90,099 + Rs. 2,100/-)] to the Appellant together with simple interest @ 9% over the sum of Rs. 88,052/- from the date of filing of the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum till full and final payment is made.  Respondent No. 1 shall pay compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/- to the Appellant for its abrupt failure to safeguard the interest of the Appellant.  Respondents are directed to ensure due compliance of this order within 40 days from today, i.d., Appellant shall be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.