DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

          Complaint No.64 of 2020                           Date of Instt. 29.01.2020

          Date of Decision: 28.04.2022

Dipali Bagria, Resident of House No.480, New Babu Labh Singh Nagar, Jalandhar City H. O. Jalandhar-144001.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. Savan Retailers Private Limited, Embassy Industrial Park Village Pathredi, Taoru Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, Bhiwadi, Haryana-122413 through its Authorized Representative.

2.       Myntra India, Headquarters: Myntra Designs Private Limited, AKR   Tech Park, 7^th Mile, Kudlu Gate, Bengaluru 560068, Karnatka, India through its Authorized Representative.

..…Opposite parties

          Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)                                        Smt. Jyotsna                              (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)          

Present:       Smt. Leena Sehgal, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.                     Defence of OP No.1 Struck Off.                                                   OP No.2 exparte.

ORDER

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.           The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that complainant purchased an Adidas Men Shower Gel from OPs vide invoice No.C100000001167134 dated 01.09.2019, order No.1119135-8296064-0689703, Dated: 31.08.2019, Packet ID: 5094184640, amount paid Rs.165/-. The MRP of the Adidas Men Shower Gel was shown to be Rs.200/- which was sold to the complainant and price of Adidas Men Shower Gel was inclusive of all taxes as per price tag on the Adidas Men Shower Gel. A discount of Rs.60/- was given on MRP of Adidas Men Shower Gel and after deducting the discount from the MRP and the final amount payable should have come to Rs.140/-. However, OPs charged an amount of Rs.25/- as IGST @ 5% on Rs.140/- i.e. total charged price from the complainant is Rs.165/- (Rs.140/- + Rs.25/- IGST).  The payment of the said amount was paid by complainant cash to the delivery man. The MRP of any article always includes all taxes including GST so a retailer cannot charge the price over and above the same but OPs have charged an excessive amount to the tune of Rs.25/- from the complainant in an illegal manner. Lastly prayer has been made that OPs be directed to refund amount of IGST illegally charged i.e. Rs.25/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of realization. Rs.25,000/- as claimed as compensation for harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigations expenses.
2.           Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 despite giving so many opportunities for filing written statement, but the OP No.1 failed to file the same and ultimately, the defence of OP No.1 was struck off.
3.           In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
4.           We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the written arguments as submitted by counsel for the complainant as well as case file very minutely.
5.           There is no need to reproduce the facts and the evidence as has already been recorded. After going through the pleadings of both the parties, we find that the factum in regard to purchase of the product from the OPs vide invoice No.C100000001167134 dated 01.09.2019, order No.1119135-8296064-0689703, Dated: 31.08.2019, Packet ID: 5094184640, amount paid Rs.165/-. The MRP of the Adidas Men Shower Gel was shown to be Rs.200/- which was sold to the complainant and price of Adidas Men Shower Gel was inclusive of all taxes as per price tag on the Adidas Men Shower Gel. A discount of Rs.60/- was given on MRP of Adidas Men Shower Gel and after deducting the discount from the MRP and the final amount payable should have come to Rs.140/-. However, OPs charged an amount of Rs.25/- as IGST @ 5% on Rs.140/- i.e. total charged price from the complainant is Rs.165/- (Rs.140/- + Rs.25/- IGST).  The payment of the said amount was paid by complainant cash to the delivery man.

6.                 Since the OP No.2 is exparte and the defence of the OP No.1 is struck off, therefore no reply and no defence is there to be relied upon and ultimately, the allegations of the complainant remained un-rebutted and un-challenged because there is no rebuttal evidence on the file qua the allegations of complainant.

7.                The OPs committed such like error which seems intentionally just to get recover more price of the product than printed thereon and if the complainant is aggrieved from that excess payment, then he has right to file a complaint. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant in regard to getting more price than MRP is established and it is settled law that none of the dealer, manufacturer can charge excess price than the MRP because MRP means include all taxes etc. In support of this version, we like to refer a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, decided in Revision Petition No.3156 of 2016, titled as “Benetton India Pvt. Limited Vs. Ravinder Singh”, wherein it has been held as under:-                                                        “It is an allurement to gullible Consumers to buy the     advertised merchandise at a cheaper bargain price, which itself        was not intended to be the real "bargaining price" and, therefore,       tantamounts to unfair trade practice.”                                                                   We further like to refer another pronouncement of Hon’ble UT State Commission, Chandigarh, decided in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 01.09.2015, in case titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others”, wherein it has been held as under:-                                                                                                                   “No one can charge more than the MRP and MRP                 includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes.”

                   Further, as per law laid down in case titled as M/s. Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs Rakesh Sharma in Revision Petition No.347 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi as well as the law laid down in M/s. Aero Club Vs Ravinder Singh Dhanju decided in First appeal No.136 of 2017 on 23.05.2017 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, it has been held that practice of charging GST on the discounted price of the product having MRP inclusive of all taxes is an unfair trade practice.

8.                If we see the case of the complainant in the light of above judgments, then apparently, it is clearly established that MRP is inclusive of all taxes and retailer can sale any product below the MRP and cannot charge above MRP i.e. price higher than MRP, so if any charge above the MRP, then over charging is a clear cut unfair trade practice.

9.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and the same is partly allowed and accordingly, OPs are directed to refund the excess price charged from the complainant i.e. Rs.25/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 01.09.2019 till realization and further OPs are directed to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant for causing harassment and mental agony, to the tune of Rs.1000/-. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.     10.             Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna                Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj 28.04.2022         Member                        Member           President