DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.198 of 26.5.2017
Decided on: 23.8.2017
Sandeep Kumar S/o Dr.Ashok Gupta, R/o H. No.35-C, New Lal Bagh Colony, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Kapsons Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Shop # 8,G.F. OMAXE Mall, Opposite Kali Mata Mandir, Patiala through its Sale Manager/Prop.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Paramjit Singh Walia, Advocate,
counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Sandeep Kumar, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one pair of shoes of the brand of “PUMA” on discount @ 30% on the MRP of Rs.999/-, as offered by the OP, vide receipt No.2905 dated 8.1.2017.In the said receipt, the M.R.P has been mentioned as Rs.799.30(wrongly written as 1370/-) and Rs.100/- (wrongly written as Rs.171.51) has been shown as tax @ 14.300%. It is stated that the actual amount, after giving discount on the amount of Rs.999/- @ 30%, came to Rs. 698.30, whereas the OP charged Rs.799.30 after having added Rs.100/- in the discounted amount. It is further stated that the OP could not charge any excess amount on account of tax because all the taxes have already been added in the M.R.P.of the product. He brought the matter into the notice of OP who told that tax was extra as per T&C and was charged as per directions and instructions given by the manufacturer. The charging of excess amount on account of tax is not only illegal but also amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the OP to refund the excess amount charged on account of tax and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses.
3. On being put to notice, OP failed to come present despite service and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to typographical mistake the M.R.P. of the product has been written as 1370/- whereas the actual M.R.P. as per the tag was Rs.999/- and the OP has issued the bill for 799.30 and not for Rs.1370/- , showing therein the tax @ 14.300% to the tune of Rs.100/- and not 171.51. As per complainant he has purchased the article in question @ 30% discount. This averment of the complainant, which is duly supported by his affidavit, has gone un-rebutted, as the O.P instead of contesting the case has preferred not to appear before this Forum. Thus, we have no reason to disbelieve the averment of the complainant. From the tag Ex.C2, it is apparent that the M.R.P. of the product in question was of Rs.999/- and the OP was to charge Rs.698.30 after giving discount @ 30% on the MRP, whereas the OP has charged Rs.799.30 as is evident from the bill/invoice Ex.C1 dated 8.1.2017. In this way the OP has charged Rs.100/- in excess from the complainant. 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. Thus, by charging extra amount of Rs.100/- on account of tax, the OP has not only committed deficiency in service but also indulged into unfair trade practice and is liable to refund the same to the complainant. It is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith 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 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”.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.P. in the following manner:
- To refund to the complainant Rs.100/-charged on account of tax.
- To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation, for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.5,000/-towards costs of litigation
The O.P. is 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: 23.8.2017 NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
At the outset, the ld.counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to typographical mistake the M.R.P. of the product has been written as 1370/- whereas the actual M.R.P. as per the tag was Rs.999/- and the OP has issued the bill for 799.30 and not for Rs.1370/- , showing therein the tax @ 14.300% to the tune of Rs.100/- and not 171.51. From the tag Ex.C2, it is apparent that the M.R.P. of the product in question was Rs.999/-, whereas in the bill Ex.C1, the OP has shown the M.R.P. as 799.30. As per complainant he has purchased the article in question @ 30% discount on the M.R.P. this
It may be stated that the actual amount after giving discount @30% on the M.R.P. of Rs.999/-, comes to Rs.698.30. However, the OP after having added Rs.100/- as tax , shown the M.R.P. as 799.30, thereby having charged an excess amount of Rs.100/- on account of tax @ 14.300 from the complainant. The averment of the complainant, which is duly supported by his affidavit, has gone un-rebutted, as the O.P instead of contesting the case has preferred not to appear before this Forum. Thus, we have no reason to disbelieve the contention of the complainant. Once on the tag , it is categorically mentioned that MRP is inclusive of all taxes, then charging of extra vat or tax, is certainly against the trade practice as is mentioned under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014. Thus, by charging extra amount of Rs.100/- on account of tax, the OP has not only committed deficiency in service but also indulged into unfair trade practice and is liable to refund the same to the complainant. It is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses. In the case titled as
