BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 8^th DAY OF AUGUST 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complainant filed this complaint U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking an award for damages of Rs.25,000 towards mental agony, inconvenience cost to complainant for charging exorbitant price and misleading the law, direction to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses, to refund the excess amount collected from complainant, to impose the penalty for Unfair Trade Practice and such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant has purchased the pair of white school shoes for his 6 years old son from OP showroom on 27.05.2022. The maximum retail price (inclusive of all taxes) of the shoe is printed on cover box, price tag and inside the shoe tongue is Rs.329/-, OP has charged higher than MRP i.e., Rs.351/-. The complainant stated that selling commodity above MRP when GST is already included in MRP, printed on the product being BATA authorized outlet, OP charged GST over MRP which is above the MRP is Unfair Trade Practice and against the law.

3. Complainant further stated that he brought this to the OP’s notice about excessive charges for the said product, OP has replied to complainant with disrespect by telling that what we have charged is correct, ‘once billed, it is billed’. It caused humiliation to the complainant in front of other customers staring at him with suspense look. Being authorized outlet BATA showroom, OP is well aware that billing higher MRP is caused provision of CGST Act. Therefore complainant stated that the OP manipulated the price by collecting the CGST and SGST on base price, which is exorbitant and exceeded MRP rate.

4. Complainant further stated that have issued legal notice dated 06.06.2022 to OP through their counsel which was duly served on OP on 08.06.2022. OP neither replied to the legal notice nor repay the excess amount collected from the complainant. Hence complainant stated the attitude of OP has caused of mental agony and physical torture to him and approached this commission for the Unfair Trade Practice of the OP and sought the relief referred supra.

5. Notice sent to Op through RPAD which was duly served on OP. OP represented through its counsel, filed statement of objection. OP stated in his version that the complaint is not maintainable being misconceived and denied of all the allegations made in the complainant. OP stated that the averment made in the complaint are false, concocted and untrue. OP stated that the central government by exercising its power U/S 5(1) of the ‘Integrate goods and Services Tax Act’ 2017 in vide notification No.21/2021 integrated tax (rate) date 31.12.2021 increased the rate of GST from 5% to 12% in respect of ‘footware of sale value not exceeding Rs.1,000/- per pair’ with effect from W.E.F dated 01.01.2022.

6. OP further stated that Rule 18(3) of legal metrology (packed commodities) rules 2011 framed under Legal Metrology Act 2009 proves for necessary compliances need to be done in case there is change in MRP of pre-packed goods due to change in rate of tax for sale. As per rules 18(3) proves that before selling pre-packed goods at increased price due to change in rate of tax, following compliances must be done:-

A) Two advertise must be published in one or more newspapers.

B) Notice must be given to the dealers.

C) Notice must be given to director in the Central Government

D) Notice must be given to controller of legal metrology in the States and Union Territory.

7. OP submitted that FAQ’s on relaxation of legal metrology (packaged commodity) Rules 2011 for facilitation of implementation of provision of GST Act and Rules is also issued by the ministry of Consumer Affairs and Food and Public Distributions, Department of Consumer Affairs, legal Metrology divisions.

8. OP stated that the present complaint is liable to dismiss for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary part. Complainant has not made BATA India Limited having its registered office at Kolkata and Gurugram, Haryana who is manufacturer and having legal responsibility towards the complainant allegations as party to the proceedings. It is further stated that all the invoice of OP bearer and explicit maintained that the revise MRP is being charged for the article falling under Gazette Notification No.21/2021 Central tax rate dated 31.12.2021 Ministry of finance, Government of India in compliances with Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules 2011. Hence OP has not indulged in Unfair Trade Practice as alleged by complainant and is liable to dismiss the complaint with cost.

9. The stage is set down to lead evidence of both parties, accordingly complainant has filed affidavit evidence and also filed 7 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. One Nabajyoti Neog, Store Manager of OP has filed affidavit evidence on behalf of OP outlet and filed 10 documents which are marked as Exhibit OP No.1 to OP No.10. Both the counsel have filed written argument and address their arguments. We perused the documents on record, hence we proceed to pass the order on merits.

10. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency of service on the part of OP’s?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

11.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- Negative.

Point No.2:- Negative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.        

REASONS

12. Point No.1&2:- These two points are interrelated and hence they are taken up for common discussion.

13. Complainant has purchased a pair of white school shoes for his son from OP showroom on 27.05.2022 by paying Rs.351/- which is not disputed. To prove the same complainant has produced documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 which disclosed on the tag of shoe and picture of box which is at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Complainant alleged that the said tag of the shoe and box discloses that the shoe costs of Rs.329/- inclusive of all taxes but Op has charged Rs.351/- which is higher than the maximum retail price (MRP) even though it includes all taxes. OP has issued taxes invoices for the purchase of shoe for Rs.351/- which is at Ex.P3.

14. Here the allegation of complainant is mainly on OP that he has charged more than the MRP which is illegal and against the law. Complainant protested about the excessive charge at the billing counter, but OP has replied to him with disrespect before other customers, made humiliation and embarrassment to the complainant. Therefore complainant has alleged that OP is manipulating the price in the name of CGST and SGST which is exorbitant and exceeds the MRP. Complainant has caused legal notice to OP calling upon him to refund the excess amount collected and for the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages which is at Ex.P4. The said notice has duly served on OP which is at Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. But OP did not replied to the legal notice of complainant. Complainant alleged the deficiency of service and Unfair Trade Practice against OP.

15. On perusal of the documents produced by complainant, the alleged are true because he produced the original tag of the shoe and boxes of particular shoe, even he stated the price of shoe of Rs.329/- is tied on the tongue of the shoe. Altogether the documents discloses that the particular shoe is cost of Rs.329/-. Upon going through the documents placed by OP No.1, discloses the ministry of finance, Government of India as issued notification No.21/2021 dated 31.12.2021 has raised tax on foot-ware which is at Ex.OP.1. The another documents issued by ministry of finance dated 18.11.2021 notification bearing No.14/2021 is about central tax, in schedule-II they raised 6% of tax in Sl.No.171A11 that clearly mentioned that the “foot ware of sale value not exceeding Rs.1,000/- per pair” is raised as per the notification which is at Ex.OP.3. OP stated in his conversation that the central government by exercising its power U/S 5(1) on Integrated Goods and Service Act 2017 in vide notification No.21/2021 and integrated tax (rate) dated 31.12.2021 increased the rate of GST from 5% to 12% in respect of “foot ware of sale value not exceeding Rs.1,000/- per pair”, which is at Ex.OP.1. As per the legal Metrology (packaged commodities) Rules 2011, provision necessary complies need to be done in the case when there is change in MRP of 3 packaged goods, due to change in respect of tax per sale. One, as per the rules, OP has to comply with:-

a) two advertisement must be published in one or more news papers

b) notice must be given to the dealers.

c) notice must be given to director in central government and

d) notice must be given to controller of legal meteorology  in states and Union territories.

In pursuance to the Rules, OP complied with 2 public, notices published in reputed news papers which are marked at Ex.OP.5 and he also intimated to director of legal metrology, Ministry of Consumer Affairs and food and public distributions on 30.12.2021, which is at Ex.OP.7. OP has sent E-mails to the dealers on 30.12.2021. By perusing all the compliances with regard to the “Impact of GST on unsold cost of pre-packed commodities”, OP has complied the same.

16. It is pertinent to note that on amount of increasing rate of GST OP required to increase price in respect of those foot-wares, who’s price were less than or equal to Rs.1,000/- to the extending of increasing GST. Accordingly in compliance with the over mentioned provisions and law and notification issued by Ministry of Consumer affairs, Food and Public distribution, Department of Weights and Measures, had posed sticker beside the principal display panel of those shoe boxes showing both the old MRP and new increased MRP of the product without tampering of principal display panel contending MRP prior to the revision in GST. After going through the notification issued by the Government and the compliance made by the OP, the revised MRP is being charged by article falling under the Gazette notification under 21/2021. It is clear that there is no deficiency of service or Unfair Trade Practice committed by OP. After going through the tax and invoice issued by OP, which is at Ex.P3 also contains a Sl.No.30 clearly mentioned that the revised MRP is being charged for the article falling under Gazette notification under 21/2021 to Ministry of Finance, Government of Indian in compliance with the legal metrology (packaged commodities) Rules 2011, it shows on the date of purchase of shoes by complainant, exists under provision of the said notification which come into effect from 01.01.2022.

17. The crux of the matter is the complainant purchased after notification came into force and the said notification applies to the footware which is less than Rs.1,000/-. Complainant has purchased shoes costs Rs.329/- is clearly acts under the said notification.

18. Therefore, charging Rs.351/- not against the law I this specific case. Hence, complainants claim is not justifiable. In our considered view, the complainant is appreciated for raising voice against the exploitation by vendors and protested against charging higher than MRP. But the present case in hand is purely complied by OP complying to the notification of Central government. Hence complainant is failed to prove the Unfair Trade Practice in particular case, due to OP complied the same. On the above reasons we answer Point No.1&2 are in negative.

19. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

                                   ORDER

i) Compliant filed against OP is hereby dismissed, no cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 8^th day of AUGUST, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;