DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 13 dated 01.01.2019.
Date of decision: 10.05.2019.
Reena Singh S/o. Vijay Singh, R/o. House No.587, Sector 25, Panchkula. ..…Complainant
Versus
Firstcry.com Mahindra Retail Private Limited, 107/1A, Mall Road beside Surya Tower, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab through its Manager or authorized representative. …..Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
MS. JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
For complainant : Sh. Manu Mittu, Advocate proxy counsel.
For OP. : Exparte.
ORDER
PER G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
1. Shorn off unnecessary details, case of the complainant is that she purchased product having MRP of Rs.130/- inclusive of all taxes from OP on 12.02.2018 by paying price of Rs.116.48 NP. Discount of Rs.26/- on MRP was granted and as such, payable price was Rs.104/-. However, GST of amount of Rs.12.48 NP charged on the discounted price, which is alleged to be an unfair trade practice and that is why this complaint filed for refund of excess charged GST. Compensation for mental and physical harassment of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- more claimed.
2. OP is exparte in this case.
3. Complainant has already produced unattested affidavit and self attested documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2. In view of latest instructions of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh there is no need to call for evidence because case can be decided on the basis of produced documents.
4. Arguments of proxy counsel for complainant heard and record gone through minutely.
5. Perusal of tag Ex. C2 shows as if MRP of the product is Rs.130/- inclusive of all taxes, but of invoice Ex. C1 reveals that discount of Rs.26/- given and even after such discount, GST of Rs.12.48 NP charged. As the MRP is always inclusive of all taxes and as such, GST on the discounted price cannot have been charged, but same has been done in this case. So certainly present is a case of adoption of unfair trade practice by the OP.
6. That practice of charging extra GST on discounted price certainly is an unfair trade practice because the same has been deprecated by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as M/s. Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs Rakesh Sharma bearing Revision Petition No.347 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 as well as in case bearing First Appeal No.136 of 2017 titled as M/s. Aero Club Vs Ravinder Singh Dhanju decided on 23.05.2017 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh. Ratio of both these cases fully applicable to the facts of the present case. So practice of charging GST on the discounted price of the product having MRP inclusive of all taxes, in this case certainly is unfair trade practice. Being so complainant stood mentally harassed and dragged in this litigation and as such, complainant is entitled for reasonable compensation for mental harassment and agony and to litigation expenses.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to OP to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.12.48 NP with interest @6% per annum w.e.f. 12.02.2018 till payment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) and litigation expenses of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP. Payment of compensation and litigation expenses be made by OP to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Jyotsna Thatai) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:10.05.2019.
Gobind Ram.
