DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  PATIALA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 370 of 26/09/2017   

   Decided on: 06/12/2018

 

Ram Bahadur S/o Sh.Ram Nath, aged 48 years, R/o 3-B, Street No.4/2, Babu Singh Colony, Ablowal, Patiala. 

    .…...Complainant

Versus

1. Garg Sports World, Adjacent to Kapkinds, opposite to Columbia Asia, Bhupindra Road, Patiala through its Store Manager/ Owner/ Partner/ Proprietor.

2. Arvind Life Style Brands Ltd. Registered office at Arvind Mills Premises, Railwaypura Post, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad.

          ……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ARGUED BY:

Sh. Amit Kumar Bedi Adv. counsel for the complainant.   

Sh. Jatinder Ahuja Adv. Counsel  for OP No.1.

           OP No.2 ex-parte.

 

 

 ORDER

                                   NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one  F/S white shirt at 40 % discount with item description as -890 7259664194/ Solid- FS- white 620520, with MRP of Rs,.1399/- from OP No.1 vide Invoice dated 15/8/2017. The price of the product came out to be Rs.839.40P after discount but OP No.1 charged  GST @ 5% which came out be Rs.41.98P. As such the complainant was made to pay a sum of Rs.881/- instead of Rs.839.40P.  The OP charged the tax twice from the complainant. The complainant was asked the OP No.1 as to why it was charging GST twice but the OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The point to be noted is that the MRP of any product is inclusive of all the taxes and a person can’t be taxed twice for the same product and the charging of the GST on the discounted price, amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. The complainant suffered mentally as well as underwent physical and mental harassment. Ultimately he approached this Forum U/s 12 of the CP Act (for short the Act) 1986.

2. On notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel, whereas OP No.1 did not appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte. In its reply, the only plea taken by OP No.1 is that it being the franchisee of the company i.e. Arvind Life Style Brands Ltd. and on the directions of this company displayed  the offers of its outlet on the products with certain terms and conditions levied by the company which were specifically displayed at the outlets as well as disclosed to the consumers at the outlets at the time of selling that offered products. It is further submitted that the MRP of the product in question was Rs.1399/- (which was inclusive of all the taxes) but as per the directions of the company that the GST is to be borne by the customer on discounted item in question. The OP No.1 charged the GST. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

3. In support of the complaint, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant along with documents Ex.C-1 copy of the bill, Ex.C-2 copy of Tag and closed the evidence of the complainant. 

4. Ld. Counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OP-1 affidavit of Sh. Harsh Garg, Prop. Of Garg Sports along with documents Ex.OP-2 copy of franchisee Agreement, Ex.OP-3 copy of mail received from Mr. Sunil TK Company Executive, Ex.OP-4 mail received from Mr. Ashutosh Sabharwal Company Executive and closed the evidence of OP No.1. 

5. Parties failed to file written arguments. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the evidence on record. 

6. Ex.C-2 is the price tag on which the MRP of the product is clearly mentioned as Rs.1399/-. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the Invoice dt.15/8/2017 wherein the price of the product is shown as Rs.1399/-, discount amount is shown as Rs.559.60P, The SGST and CGST amount ( Rs.20.99P + Rs.20.99P) total Rs.41.98P and the total amount paid by the complainant is Rs.881/-. 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. 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 Vat and also  liable to  compensate the complainant for causing  mental agony and physical harassment . It is also liable to pay litigation expenses. 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 GST 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”. 

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:

i. To refund Rs.41.98P rounded off Rs.42/- charged on account of SGST & CGST,  to the complainant. 

ii. To pay Rs.3000/-as compensation, for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. 

        The OPs are further directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 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.  

ANNOUNCED 

DATED:  06/12/2018

 

 

     NEELAM  GUPTA

           MEMBER

 

 

KANWALJEET SINGH 

           MEMBER