Haryana

Ambala

CC/35/2018

Kamal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Puma India - Opp.Party(s)

H.S. Baidwan

14 May 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  35 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution         : 25.01.2018

                                                          Date of decision   :  14.05.2018

 

 

Kamal Singh S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, R/o H.No.-B11, Kutir Vihar, Near Army ITI, Ambala Cantt.

…….Complainant.

 

 

1.       Puma India, through its Manager/Managing Director, 500, CMH Road, Indiranager, Bengaluru Pete, Bangalore Urban District Karnataka, India-560038.

2.       TDS Management Consultant Pvt Ltd. Shop No.51, NH-1, Factory Stores, Kuldeep Nagara, Ambala Cantt-133004.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

 

 

Present:       Sh. Harpreet Singh, Baidwan, counsel for complainant.

Ops proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 25.04.2018.

.

 

ORDER:

 

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased  one pair of shoe in brand name  of Puma vide bill no.177 dated 04.07.2017 from OP No.2 manufactured by OP No.1. At the time of sale of the shoe pair, the OP No.2 assured to the complainant that the shoe pair is on 50% discount and he would have to pay the 50% amount of the pair. Taking into consideration of the assurance given by the OP No.2 the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.2654/- on the above said pair of shoe. After some time the complainant came to know that under the consumer laws the MRP is inclusive  of all taxes and the complainant calculated the total amount of bill and he found that the OP No.2 have charged him excess amount in the bill because the total MRP of pair of shoe is Rs.4499/- and after 50% discount it should be Rs.2249.5 but the OP No.2 had charge him Rs.2654/-the complainant visit the OP No.2 after some days and asked about the reason of extra charge and the salesman told the complainant that they have charged the GST  @ 18% after discount and i.e. 405/-.  The complainant has requested them to rectify the fault and return the extra amount of Rs.405/- charged by them because the MRP of product is inclusive of all taxes but the same was not rectified by the Ops. On 06.10.2017 complainant had made a complaint on toll free no. of OP No.1 vide complaint no.456797 and by e-mail on same day. After some time an officer name Mr. Sareen contacted the complainant and after proper internal investigation he admitted the fact of extra charge of GST but he said that he is enable to help the complainant. Thus in this manner the Ops are indulged in practicing unfair means of business and be cheated the complainant. Hence the present complaint.

2.                Registered notices issued to Ops No. 1 & 2 but none have turned up on their behalf and OP Nos. 1 & 2 was proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 25.04.2018.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-2 and close his evidence. Op Nos. 1 & 2 already proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 25.04.2018.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. In the present case MRP of the product to the tune of Rs.4,499/-   as per Annexure C-1 and it is mentioned in the bill that an amount of  Rs.405/- including GST @ 18% after giving discount @ 50 %  as is evident through documents as mentioned above. After charging the above said GST amount from the complainant, complainant has also sent E-mail to the Op No.1 for returning the illegal charge amount/GST but Ops have not redress the grievance of the complainant. Under the consumer Laws the MRP is inclusive of all taxes, so whenever a discount is offered, it is on MRP, hence it is illegal to charge the GST, on the discounted price. The consumer forum and national commission has passed many orders terming the practice as unfair and imposed penalties but is it still continuing. The reason is that if 1% customer goes to court, they won’t mind paying penalty. By putting such boards they are virtually misleading the public concerning the price at which a product or product are, ordinarily sold. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in number of has observed that no tax can be charged in the name of  discount on MRP. Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as M/s Adi Sports Vs. Shyam Sunder Sharma and Anr. decided on 23.05.2016 in Appeal No.101 of 2016 has held that We are satisfied that once it is mentioned in a label put on T-shirts that MRP includes the taxes imposed, then after giving discount, it was not open to the appellant to tax the goods again. For adopting the said procedure, nothing has been brought on record by the appellant, to say that levy was justified. Probably double taxation is not permissible. The appellant, thus, adopted unfair trade practice, on that count.  Moreover the Ops are exparte in this case, therefore, the version of the complainant also remained unrebutted.

5.                The counsel for the complainant has drew our attention towards the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2006, certain guidelines have been provided so that the consumer cannot be charged over to the maximum price printed on the goods by the manufacturer. These guidelines are as follows:

1.     Consumer goods mean all goods and items brought in the market for sale and are meant for the use and consumption of the consumers;

2.     Cost of production means cost incurred directly or indirectly by the manufacturer in the production of goods;

3.     Printing means printing of the cost of production and retail price at a visible place on the product in Hindi and English and the local language of the place it is sold; and

4.     Maximum retail price means such price at which the product shall be sold in retail and such price shall include all taxes levied on the product.

 6.               From the above it is clear that the OPs are deficient in providing service besides indulging in unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (1) (r) of Consumer Protection Act which is as under: 

(r) “unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice.

 

7.                Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case this Forum has in a firm view that the present complaint deserves acceptance because the Ops are indulged in the unfair trade practice as discussed above. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with costs and OPs are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:             

1. To refund Rs.405/-(charged on account of GST).
2. To pay Rs.5000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and unfair trade practice.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- on account of litigation charges.

 

Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 14.05.2018                                 (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

                (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)

Member