Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/270

Meenu Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mayya Dass Ashok Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil kapoor Rep.

16 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No: 270 dated 20.05.2021.                              Date of decision: 16.08.2024. 

Ms. Meenu Kapoor wife of Sh. Sunil Kapoor son of Sh. Ram Nath Kapoor son of Sh. Gurmukh Dass son of Sh. Saudagar Mal, Resident of M.C. UID#B001 02687, Bindraban Road, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab. Phone: 9915614543. Aadhar No.4315 2593 3397.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Mayya Dass Ashok Kumar, Saban Bazar, Ludhiana-141008,

Phone: 2-728131, 9876525716, 991552960, through its Proprietor.

2. Pidilite Industries Ltd., Regent Chambers, Mumbai-400 021. (India) Email:

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Complaint against OP2 not admitted vide order                        dated 25.05.2021.

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.05.2019, the complainant purchased 2 liter pack of Marine Fevicol from OP1 for woodwork at her house. As the complainant was not having cash on 22.05.2019 so she requested the OP to swipe her debit card for bill payment but the OP asked her that he accepts the payment in cash only. After arranging cash, the complainant made payment of Rs.489/- vide invoice No.5406 dated 22.05.2019. The complainant stated that as per packing of the product the MRP was Rs.465/- (inclusive all taxes) but the OP levied GST@18% after quoting the selling price at Rs.415/- below the MRP of the product. As such, the OP charged Rs.84/- in excess from her. According to the complainant, the OP charged over and above the MRP of the product with the excuse that the product was of the year 2018 and its new MRP has hugely increased. OP1 is the retail seller of products of OP2 for its financial gain. Thus, the OPs are indulged in unscrupulous exploitation of the consumer/complainant by charging the amount in excess to gain a wrongful and unjust financial enrichment. This amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which has caused harassment, mental agony and unjust financial loss to the complainant. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.84/- along with interest as well as to pay litigation expenses and compensation of Rs.20,000/-.

2.                The complaint against OP2 was not admitted vide order dated 25.05.2021.

3.                Upon notice, OP1 appeared and filed written statement assailed by complaint by taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability; the complaint is barred by imitation; the complainant has not come with clean hands; lack of cause of action etc. OP1 stated that the complainant visited its shop and enquired about the rate of the product. OP1 disclosed the price of the product to the complainant as Rs.415/- plus taxes extra as levied and then the complainant agreed to purchase the product against cash payment and a bill of Rs.415/- plus SGST @9% of Rs.37/- and CGST @9% of Rs.37/- totaling Rs.489/- was raised. OP1 further stated that under GST Act, the invoice was not generated at MRP printed on the products, bill usually raised on the rate provided by the supplier on which revised GST prevalent on the date of invoice. According to OP1, it has not charged any excessive rate. There is no difference of Rs.84/- from the MRP of Rs.465/- and bill amount of Rs.489/-. The difference if any is occurred due to rate as well as taxes prevalent at that time.

                   On merits, OP1 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and factual submission of the case. OP1 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                The complainant filed replication to the written statement of OP1 reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint and controverted those mentioned in the written statement of OP1.

5.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 is the copy of invoice No.5406 dated 22.05.2019 of Rs.489/-, Ex. C2 is the copy of packaging on the product and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 tendered affidavit  Ex. RA of Sh. Ashok Kumar of the OP and closed the evidence.           

7.                None turned up for the complainant. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, rejoinder, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement along with affidavit produced on record by both the parties. We have also gone through synopsis of written arguments. We proceed to decide the case on merits.

8.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased Synthetic Resin Adhesive (Fevicol Marine) 2KG from OP1 vide invoice dated 22.05.2019 Ex. C1 for a sum of Rs.489/-. As per invoice Ex. C1, the price of the product is mentioned as Rs.415/- and SGST@9% of Rs.37/- as well as CGST @9% of Rs.37/- was charged. However, on the packaging of the product i.e. Ex. C2, the MRP of Rs.465/- inclusive of all taxes is mentioned. The point in issue is that whether as per invoice Ex. C1, the product bearing MRP of Rs.415/- was sold in excess of Rs.74/- by OP1 or not.

9.                MRP denotes ‘Maximum Retail Price’ which is the maximum amount a retailer can charge from a buyer including taxes. The retailer can charge below the MRP but cannot cross threshold of the amount specified in MRP even by a single paisa. The word “Complaint” has been defined by Section 2(6) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which means that any allegation in writing made by the complainant for obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act. Its clause (iv) is relevant for adjudication of the matter in controversy which is reproduced as under:-

(iv) a trader or a service provider, as the case may be, has charged             for the goods or for the services mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price –

1. fixed by or under any law for the time being in force; or
2. displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods; or
3. displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being in force; or
4. agreed between the parties.

10.              Ex. C2 is the photograph of the packaging of the product produced by the complainant. A careful examination of this photograph reveals that Net weight 2Kg, Ref. No.RC-H38226 B, MFD 02/2018 as well as MRP Rs.465/- inclusive of all taxes has been written. Whereas as per the invoice Ex. C1, the price of the product is mentioned as Rs.415/- and Rs.74/- has been levied in lieu of GST. A careful examination of Ex. C1 reveals that the maximum retail price (MRP) of the product is written as Rs.415/-.  Therefore, as per the price printed on Ex. C2, OP1 was supposed to charge Rs.465/- from the complainant but OP1 has charged an amount of Rs.24/- in excess of the said MRP. Since the complainant was charged Rs.489/- i.e. more than the MRP printed on the package of the product and as such, in this manner, OP1 has charged Rs.24/- in excess from the complainant and it amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP1. In view of the facts and circumstances, it would be just and proper if OP1 directed to refund the amount of Rs.24/- along with composite compensation of Rs.7,000/-.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed exparte in terms that OP1 will refund Rs.24/- with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of actual payment. OP1 shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.08.2024.

Gobind Ram.