Haryana

Panchkula

CC/245/2020

EX.SUB/MAJ.ANIL CHHIBBER. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOHLI TRADERS. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

23 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	245 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	13.08.2020
Date of Decision	:	23.01.2023

 

 

Ex. Sub/Maj. Anil Chhibber, resident of House No.1258, Saini Vihar, Phase-3, Baltana, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali(Punjab)

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Versus

1.     Kohli Traders, Shop No.18, Sarvastra Shopping Complex, K-Area, Zirakpur(Punjab) through its authorized  signatory. Now at Shop No.37, Shalimar Enclave, Opposite Motia Heights, Dhakoli, Zirakpur (Punjab).

2.     Voltas  House ‘A’ Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400033 throught its authorized signatory.

3.     Voltas Limited, Plot No.194-195, Ist Floor, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.

4.     Commandant 474 Engr. Bde., K Area, Zirakpur(Punjab).

                                                                   ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.  

                        Sh.Gaurav Kohli, Prop./Authorised Representative of                                 OP No.1.

                        Sh.Rajinder Pandey, Advocate for OPs No.2 & 3.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the complainant is an ex-service man and he purchased two spit ACs of Voltas company from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.74,200/-.The OP No.1 represented itself as a dealer of canteen store department(hereinafter referred as to CSD) who provides the electrical gadgets on canteen rates; a sum of Rs.74,200/- was paid by the complainant through his credit card issued by HDFC Bank Ltd., Panchkula; a sum of Rs.250/- was paid as transportation charges; the said ACs were delivered at the residence of the complainant along with invoice no.937 dated 04.07.2020 amounting to Rs.72,800/-. The ACs were installed by the officials of the OP no.3, who charged an amount of Rs.1,600/- as installation charges. After the installation of the ACs, the complainant was astonished to see the invoice, wherein it was found that the price of the ACs was only Rs.56,875/-,  whereas the OP no.1  had charged a sum of Rs.7,962.50 under the head of Central Goods and Service Tax(herein after referred as to CGST) and Rs.7,962.50 as State Goods and Service Tax(herein after referred as to SGST). It is stated that in case of purchase made by an ex-service man, the CGST and SGST are not payable.  Further, it is stated that a sum of Rs.1,400/- was charged extra by the OP No.1. It is stated that the ACs of the voltas of the same model were available at cheaper rate in market. It is alleged that the OP No.1 is neither Canteen store Department (CSD) dealer nor the said model is in the CSD list. The OP No.1 has sold the ACs to the complainant at higher price by charging CGST and SGST, whereas the same are not applicable in the case of purchase made by army persons. The complainant had requested the OP No.1 to refund the amount of CGST and SGST as charged by him along with the amount of Rs.1,400/- and Rs.1,600/- but the OP no.1 totally refused. The OP No.1 has sold the ACs to the complainant by misrepresenting himself as an authorized CSD dealer and thus, there is a clear deficiency on the part of the Ops. Due to the act and conduct of Ops, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the Op No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement mentioning therein that OP No.1 runs a shop in the Army Complex, K-area, Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, Zirakpur District SAS Nagar Mohali Punjab and he is an authorized Canteen Store Department Dealer, who provides the Electronic Gadgets to army personnel at Canteen Rates. It is stated that the OP No.1 had sold 2 Split ACs worth Rs.35,800/- each and two stands worth of Rs.600/- each to complainant and received an amount of Rs.72,800/- from him by issuing an original invoice amounting to Rs.72,800/-to complainant. The complainant had paid said amount through two Credit Cards  issued by his HDFC Bank as well as Axis Bank Rs.1,400/-was charged from the  complainant  for availing  EMI services  for 6 months. The complainant had also taken benefit of Rs.1,420.93 from his HDFC Bank and Rs.1576.76 from his Axis Bank to avail these services. The transportation charges were directly paid by the complainant to transporter and OP No.1 has nothing to do with the same. It is submitted that OP No.1 had also apprised the complainant about the benefits of Credit Card Scheme and he(complainant) on the directions of OP No.1 had also availed the benefit  of cashback of Rs.6,000/-(Rs.3000/- from HDFC Bank Credit Card and Rs.3,000/- from Axis Bank Credit Card), but complainant did not disclose these facts in his complaint. It is denied that the complainant had wrongly charged any extra amount qua CGST and SGST. It is stated that the OP No.1 had charged CSD prices including CGST and SGST on products sold to the complainant as per the CSD price list provided by OPs No.2 & 3. It is stated that the allegations leveled qua charging of Rs.1,600/- are baseless as the same were charged by Ops No.2 & 3. It is submitted that the complainant had also approached the Army Commander by lodging a complaint regarding redressal of his grievances but the same was found meritless by the Army Commander. Regarding making of payment, it is stated that the same was made by the complainant through one Credit Card of HDFC Bank. It is submitted that the another payment was made by the complainant through his credit card of Axis Bank. It is denied that the complainant made the payment through ICICI card. Rest of the averments have been denied being false, baseless and incorrect and it is submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the Op No.1 and thus, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

                Upon notice, the Ops No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and baseless; the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer; the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint; no locus-standi to file the present complaint; the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. On merits, it is admitted that the split ACs of voltas were sold by OP No.1 to the complainant. It is stated that the OP No.1 is a dealer of Ops No.2 & 3, who are manufacturer and seller of voltas product. It is admitted that ACs were installed by the team of Ops and a sum of Rs.800/- per AC was charged from the complainant on account of additional copper wires and other material, which was required for installation. It is stated that a total sum of Rs.72,800/- was charged by the OP No.1 including CGST and SGST. It is stated that the taxes were charged as per statutory requirement and nothing unnecessarily was charged. Rest of the averments made by the complainant qua OPs No.2 & 3 have been denied and it is submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the Ops No.2 & 3 and thus, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-17 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the evidence of the OP No.1 was closed vide Commission order dated 13.12.2021. The ld. counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit Annexure R-3/A and closed the evidence.

                During the arguments, the OP no.1 has placed on record the email dated 12.09.2020 as received by him from AGM(AFD) CSD,HO. The copy of email is taken on record as Mark R-1 for the adjudication of the controversy in a proper and fair manner.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs No.1 to 3 and gone through the entire record including the written arguments filed by the complainant as well as OPs No.2 & 3, minutely and carefully.

5.             During arguments, the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint as also in his affidavit C-A and written submissions filed on 28.02.2022 contended that OP No.1had wrongly charged a sum of Rs.15,925/-(Rs.7962.50+7962.50) on account of CGST and SGST from the complainant in violation of the notification dated 28.06.2017(Mark ‘B’) issued by Ministry of Finance of India. It is contended that as per said notification, the army personnel including the ex-service man are not liable to be charged for any amount under the head of CGST and SGST. It is asserted that OP No.1 was neither an authorized CSD dealer nor the voltas ACs as sold by OP No.1 to him, were in the list of CSD list and thus, it is contended that the OP no.1 had indulged into the unfair trade practice, while rendering services to the complainant.

6.             On the other hand, the OP No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 have contested the complaint by similar pleas. The OP No.1 has reiterated the averments in its written statement and contended that the complainant was charged the CSD price including the amount of CSGT and SGST as per CSD price list on products sold to him,. It is vehemently denied that any extra amount contrary to law was charged from the complainant. It is reiterated that the complainant had got the benefit of the cash-back of Rs.6,000/-, which he had not disclosed in the complaint. It is argued that the OPs No.1 is a duly authorized CSD dealer to sell the voltas product and thus, there was no deficiency on its part. Reliance has been placed on email  dated 12.09.2020(Mark R-1).

7.             The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ops No.2 & 3 stated that the amount of Rs.1,600/- i.e. Rs.800/- per ACs was charged from the complainant on account of additional copper wires and other material, which was required for installation. The learned counsel contended that the taxes were charged by the OP no.1 from the complainant as per the statutory requirements and that the OP No.1 is duly authorized CSD dealer and thus, it has been prayed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed being baseless and frivolous.

8.             The main issue in the present complaint is whether the act of OP No.1, while charging a sum of Rs.7,962.50 and Rs.7,962.50 under the head of CGST and SGST vide invoice dated 04.07.2020(Annexure C-3) whereby two split voltas ACs were sold to the complaint, was valid, legal and justified. Admittedly, as per invoice(Annexure C-3) a sum of Rs.15,925/- i.e. (Rs.7962.50 & Rs.7962.50) under the head of CGST and SGST was charged by OP No.1 from the complainant. The sale price of Rs. 28,437.50 per AC as per said invoice(Annexure C-3) is also evident.

9.             The notification no.6/2017 dated 28.06.2017 (Mark ‘B’) issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance(Department of Revenue) is of utmost important to sort out  the controversy in question; hence for the sake of clarity and convenience  the same is reproduced as under:-

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

Notification No.6/2017-Central  Tax(Rate)

 

New Delhi, the 28^th June, 2017

 

G.S.R. (E)- In exercise of the powers  conferred  by section 55 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017(12 of 2017), the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby  specifies  the Canteen Stores Department(hereinafter referred to as the CSD), under the Ministry of Defence, as a person who shall be entitled  to claim  a refund  of fifty percent of the applicable central tax paid by it on all inward  supplies  of goods received by it for the purpose of subsequent  supply of such goods to the Unit Run Canteens of the CSD or to the authorized customers of the CSD.

2.       This notification shall come into force with effect from the 1^st day of July, 2017.

10.            A bare perusal of above would make it evident that a discount of 50% under the head of CGST is/was admissible to an army personnel including the ex-service man. The complainant being an ex-service man was entitled to the said discount of 50% under the head of CGST as per said notification; therefore, the act on the part of OP No.1 while charging the CGST from the complainant was in clear violation of provisions contained in said notification. The OP No.1 being an authorized CSD dealer as per letter dated 12.10.2017(Annexure C-8) issued by Canteen Store Department(Ministry of Defence) qua the sale of items manufactured by whirlpool India Ltd. cannot be assumed to be ignorant or unaware of the benefits admissible to army personnel in the shape of discount under the head of CGST as per said notifications dated 28.06.2017(Mark ‘B’). Moreover, the OP No.1 has failed to adduce any record to show that it was an authorized CSD dealer to sell the voltas product. It is the consistent, specific and categorical assertion of the complainant that the OP No.1 was not an authorized CSD dealer to sell the voltas product. In view of the said assertions made by the complainant, a heavy duty was cast upon the OP No.1 as also upon OPs No.2 & 3 to place on record the duly authorization letter issued by CSD (Ministry of Defence) in favour of OP No.1 so as to negate & falsify the version of the complainant. The dealership authorization issued by voltas, which is placed on record as Annexure C-15, is of no help to the case of the OP No.1 as well as OPs No.2 & 3 as the same was not issued by CSD (Ministry of Defence). Further, the email dated 12.09.2020(Mark R-1)  is of no help to the OPs as the product in question was sold on 04.07.2020 i.e. prior to the issuance of said email dated 12.09.2020. The inquiry report placed on record as Annexure C-16 is also of no help of OP no.1 as the same is silent qua the main issue. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that OP no.1 as well as Ops No.2 & 3 were deficient while rendering services to the complainant for which they are liable, jointly and severally, to compensate the complainant. Apart from above, the OPs No.2 & 3 have been found deficient while not issuing any acknowledgment qua receipt of Rs.1,600/- from the complainant. Further, the OPs No.2 & 3 had also wrongly mis-represented that the OP No.1 was an authorized CSD dealer qua the sale of voltas products to ex-service man.

11.            Now, turning to the relief part, it is found that the complainant has been charged an amount of Rs.3981.25 in excess of the provisions contained in the said notification dated 28.06.2017(Mark ‘B’). Thus, the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.3981.25. Apart from it, the complainant is entitled to be duly compensated on account of mental agony, physical harassment and litigation charges.  

12.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 to 3:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.3,981.25 to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum(S.I.), which was charged in excess of the provisions contained in the said notification dated 28.06.2017(Mark ‘B’)w.e.f. the bill dated 04.07.2020 (Annexure C-3) till its actual realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account  of indulgence by  OPs No.1 to 3 into unfair trade practice by way of violating the provisions contained in the notification dated 28.06.2017(Mark ‘B’).
3. To pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, physical  harassment and litigation charges.

 

13.            The OPs No.1 to 3 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 to 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:23.01.2022

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini            Satpal       

           Member                        Member                               President