For Complainant         :           Self

For OP No.1                 :           None

For OP No.2                 :           Self.

                                                            -x-

1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, his vehicle Etios GD Car bearing Registration No. OD 10F-8379 met with an accident near NAC Chowk, Sunabeda on 13.12.2018 and the vehicle was shifted to M/s. Auto Care, Jeypore as per instruction of Insurance Company and the repairer advised the complainant to purchase motor parts for repair as per estimate.  It is submitted that the complainant went to the motor part shop of OP.1 who stated that the parts are to procured from M/s. Atul Motors, Raipur, CG and accordingly OP.1 procured the motor parts and handed over the same to the complainant vide Cash Bill No.1038 dt.07.02.2019 for an amount of Rs.39, 850/-.  It is further submitted that after purchased, the complainant could know that the cost of each motor parts item purchased from OP.1 is too high as compared to the rates available in the NET for Etios spare parts.  During course of repair of the vehicle, one spare part was required and the complainant procured the same directly from M/s. Atul Motors, Raipur vide Invoice dt.13.2.2019 for Rs.1600/- which rate was correct as per Company rate available in the Company Website.  It is also found that the OP.1 has taken very excess rate than that of rates quoted by the repairer, M/s. Auto Care of Insurance Co.  The complainant also submitted that the OP.1 has collected 28% GST on the motor parts whereas M/s. Atul Motors has collected only 18% and the OP.1 has cunningly scratched the rates mentioned in the Cover/Sachet of each motor part sold to the complainant.  Thus alleging UTP on the part of the OP.1, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP.1 to furnish the purchase bill of M/s. Atul Motors, Raipur which were resold to the complainant and to refund the excess price taken by him with interest @ 18% and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     In spite of valid notice, the OP No.1 neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP No.2 filed counter quoting the OGST rules and contended that the GST rate chart is available for various goods for public domain in the website.  It is contended that the OP.2 has no power to fix the rate on which the seller will sell the product but the selling price should be lower than the MRP if available.  The OP.2 further contended that the rate chart of GST goods are being amended from time to time by GST council and one can know the rate of tax from the HSN Code which is not mentioned in the tax invoice issued by the OP.1 vide Invoice No.1038 dt.07.02.2019.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant against him.

3.                     The complainant and OP.2 have filed certain documents in support of their respective cases.  We have heard from the complainant at length and perused the materials available on record.

4.                    In this case, the Etios GD Car of the complainant met with an accident on 13.12.2018 and the vehicle was shifted to a garage at Jeypore namely M/s. Auto Care who estimated the loss of parts and advised to purchase said motor parts for repair.  In support of his above contention, the complainant has filed repairer’s estimate dt.19.12.2018.  It is further stated that the complainant went to OP.1 for purchase of spare parts and the OP.1 after procuring the spare parts from M/s. Atul Motors, Raipur, CG sold the same to the complainant vide bill No.1038 dt.07.02.2019 for an amount of Rs.39, 850/-.  The complainant has also filed the copy of above bill of OP.1.  The case of the complainant is that he could know that the cost of each item purchased from OP.1 is too much high as compared to the rates available in the NET for Etios spare parts.  Incidentally, during course of repair of his vehicle, one spare part (072-RCU-EL) was required and the complainant procured the same directly from M/s. Atul Motors, Raipur vide Invoice dt.13.02.2019 for Rs.1600/- which rate is correct as per rate available in the Company website.  It is the further case of the complainant that the OP.1 has taken 28% GST on the motor parts sold by him whereas M/s. Atul Motors, Raipur has collected 18% towards GST.  The complainant has filed the copy of retail invoice issued by M/s. Atul Motors in support of his case.  It is also the further case of the complainant that the OP.1 has scratched the rates mention in the cover/sachets of each spare part sold to the complainant, the photo copies of which have been filed by the complainant in this case.

5.                     It is seen that the OP.1 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner.  Further another notice vide No.02 dt.06.01.2020 was also sent to him as per Order No.10 dt.27.12.2020 directing him to participate in the hearing on 22.01.2020 but the OP could not exploit the opportunity.  In absence of counter and participation of the OP.1 in this proceeding, the above allegation of the complainant which is duly supported by documentary evidence remained unchallenged.

6.                     The OP No.2 stated that it has no power to fix the rate on which the seller will sell the product but the selling price should be lower than the MRP if available.  The OP.2 further contended that the rate chart of GST goods are being amended from time to time by GST council and one can know the rate of tax from the HSN Code which is not mentioned in the tax invoice issued by the OP.1 vide Invoice No.1038 dt.07.02.2019. 

7.                     We have carefully gone through the record and found that the OP.1 has not mentioned the HSN Code in its bill for which we could not ascertain the actual rate of each motor part sold to the complainant.  No mention of HSN Code in the Invoice by the OP.1 certainly amounts to Unfair Trade Practice on its part.  Further it is seen from the record that the OP.1 has scratched the rates mentioned in each motor part as mentioned in their respective covers.  It is the market trend and principle that no seller can charge excess price than that of MRP but in this case, the OP.1 has scratched the MRP arbitrarily for his wrongful gain.  This action by the OP.1 in our opinion amounts to Restrictive Trade Practice.  The OP.1 being a retailer has committed gross mistakes and has forgotten business ethics while dealing with the complainant in particular and with the public in general. For such conduct of the OP.1, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which the complainant is entitled for some compensation and cost.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel, a sum of Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.1 is directed to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation along with Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the awarded sum shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order till actual payment.  The OP.1 is further warned not to commit such type of mistake while dealing with any customer.  However, there is no case against OP No.2.

(to dict.)