DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 8th day of October 2021
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon.V President
: Smt.Vidya.A, Member Date of Filing: 29/03/2019
CC/102/2019
Jayarajan
S/o.Ramanunni Nair
Pullayilkalithil House, Pettathur Post,
Melattur Via, Malappuram Dist.
(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan) - Complainant
Vs
Proprietor / Managing Partner / Manager
M/s.Able Scoobikes LLP,
Eranad Tower, Mepparamb,
Pirayiri P.O. Palakkad – 678 004 - Opposite party
(By Adv.Jinju Jose)
O R D E R
By Sri.Vinay Menon. V, President
1. The complaint is filed by the complainant aggrieved by the excess amount levied by the opposite party over and above the MRP.
2. Gist of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a drive KIT G12 and CABLE ASSY and clutch G through his friend Sri. Manikandan for complainant’s bike bearing No.KL-53F-35. As cost of the spare parts he had to pay Rs.1564/- The price shown as MRP on the cover of the spare parts was only 880/-. This excess charging went against the provisions of Commodities Act as well as the provisions of GST Rules and Regulations. As per the complainant the opposite party has charged an excess of Rs.411 and Rs.258.18 under the heading of GST. Furthermore he also averred that he had not carried out the paid repair for which he had to pay Rs.411/-
The complainant sought for return of Rs.411/- and Rs.252/- which was charged in the guise of GST and which was collected illegally by violating all the laws. He also sought for Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony and also Rs.15,000/- as cost and expense for this litigation.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite parties even though the counsel had vakkalath for and on behalf of the opposite parties they had not turned up for any proceedings from 9/5/2019 and hence they were set exparte on 12/2/21. No version was also filed.
4. Ext.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant.
5. From a reading of the complaint the following issues arise for consideration.
1. Is the complainant entitled to receive the relief sought for ?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
3.If so, Cost and compensation ?
Issues 1 & 2
6. The clear and unambiguous case of the complainant is that the complainant was charged amounts over and above the MRP. Ext.A2 series are two invoices bearing nos.233 and 234 both dated 21/8/2018. Invoice No.233 is for Rs.411/- for consumable charges and paid repair. Invoice No.234 shows Rs.1153/- as net value for drive chain KIT G12 and CABLE ASSY Clutch G12. Ext.A3 is the package in which the drive chain KIT is packed. The price sticker attached to Ext.A3 shows MRP as Rs.880/-The first heading in Invoice No.234 with regard to drive chain KIT shows the price as Rs.838.28 and the price of CABLE ASSY Clutch G as Rs.109.77. These amounts (i.e.Rs.838.23.& Rs.109.77) are added and after discounting Rs.47.40/-, Rs.901.05 is valued for GST purposes. Rs.252.18 is charged as GST. Hence there is a clear overcharging on the price of drive chain KIT G12 and CABLE ASSY clutch as evidenced by a joint reading of invoice No.234 and Ext.A3. We make it clear that Rs.252/- is charged on the total value of Rs.948/- so the levy of GST on Rs.838.28 is even less.
7. Invoice No.233 would not assist the case of the complainant as he has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his case that he had not availed labour works on his bike. In view of the aforesaid findings, we hold that issues No.1 and 2 are to be held against the opposite party. By levying GST on the price of items (1) in invoice No.234, the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by charging a price over and above that of MRP as well as violation of the provisions of Rule 18(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Hence, the complaint is partly allowed.
Issue 3
8. In conclusion we hold as follows:
1.The Opposite party is directed to return the complainant the GST charged on the cost of drive chain KIT G12
2.The claims for Rs.412/ and Rs.252/- are disallowed.
3.The Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.
4.The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost to the complainant.
Time for compliance is 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 8th day of October 2021.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of RC Book of vehicle bearing No.KL-53-F-35
Ext.A2 – Original Cash invoice issued by OP bearing No.233&234 dtd.21/8/17
Ext.A3 – Outer packet of Drive chain KIT of Suzuki stating Rs.880/ as MRP.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
NIL
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
NIL
Cost : Rs.10,000/- allowed as cost.
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the
proceedings in accordance with Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission
procedure) Regulations, 2020.
