DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.141  of 16.4.2018

                                      Decided on:    2.8.2018

Rohit Pahwa age 36 year S/o Satnam Pahwa R/o House No.23, Ram Vihar Baltana Mohali Punjab.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Firstcry.com Mahindra Retail Private Limited SCO 18 Near HDFC Bank Leela Bhawan Complex Bhupindra Road, Patiala 147001 through its Manager or Authorized representative.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member                                      

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.Harpreet Saini,Advocate,counsel for the complainant.

                                       Opposite party ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM GUPTA,  MEMBER

1.Brief, facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one product from Firstcry.com Mahindra Retail Privatet Limited (hereinafter referred to as the OP), on 5.4.2018 after paying the consideration amount of Rs.139.29(round off) The M.R.P. of the said product is Rs.160/- which is inclusive of all taxes. After giving discount  of Rs.41.95,  on the M.R.P. of the purchased product, the payable price came to Rs.118.05, which is inclusive of all taxes, but in addition thereto, the OP charged GST @ 18% (State GST 9% and Central GST 9%, which came to Rs.10.62 respectively),  on the discounted price of the product and the complainant  had to pay  Rs.139.29(round off) as consideration amount of the purchased item. The complainant resisted for the said act of the OP but it did not listen to the complainant. In this way, the OP defrauded the complainant by charging excess tax illegally from the complainant, which caused mental and physical agony alongwith extra financial burden on the complainant. It is prayed that the OP may kindly be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.45000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.15000/-. Hence this complaint.

2.Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OP but despite service it failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.

3.In order to prove the case of the complainant, his ld. counsel tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1&C2,   and closed the evidence of the complainant.

4.We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and  also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

5.During arguments the contentions of ld. counsel of the complainant were similar to its  pleadings as taken in the complaint, so it is no need to reiterate the same. From the copy of the rapper,Ex.C2, of the product,  it is evident that  the   purchased product is of Rs.160/-. On the  retail invoice,Ex.C1, issued by the OP,  the  M.R.P. of the  purchased product has also been mentioned as Rs.160/-. In the said bill, the OP gave the discount of Rs.41.95 . In this way the payable amount came to Rs. Rs.118.05. However, the OP after adding CGST of Rs.10.62 and SGST of Rs.10.62, on this amount  has raised the bill for Rs.139.29.  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. 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”.

6.Since the OP has charged CGST & SGST on the discounted price of the product, 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. Resultantly, we allow the complaint against the OP with a direction to it to refund the amount charged extra from the complainant and also to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. The O.P. is further directed to comply the said order within a period of 45 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.

DATED: 2.8.2018

                          KANWALJEET  SINGH                  NEELAM GUPTA

                                   MEMBER                             MEMBER