Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
- Vikram s/o Sh. Ranbir Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant approached the opposite party for the purchase of kitchen items and garments on 17.1.2017 and paid Rs. 1458.82 against bill No. 027 counter No.08 which was paid through ATM (Debit card) for Rs. 1458.82 paise. On attracting by display/advertisement with Tag of 50% discount on Men’s jacket, the complainant purchased one jacket of Rs. 699/- out of the display counter tagged with 50% off. The complainant noted that the last product bearing No. 1131009240005 was charged more than the mentioned tagged price. The complainant requested the opposite party that the price of the said product will be charged to the tune of Rs. 349.50 paise after giving 50% discount on price of the jacket i.e. Rs. 699.00 which includes all taxes. However, the opposite party has charged Rs.366.07 paise i.e. Rs. 16.57 paise charged in excess. The complainant approached the opposite party and asked for refund of the excess amount , but opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs :-
- Opposite party be directed to refund Rs. 16.57 paise charged in excess on account of charging above the MRP of display tagged price and to stop committing such kind of unfair trade practice to the general public;
- To stop from misleading consumers by misleading advertisement that it is charging after giving 50% off on product, where it is actually charging more than MRP ;
- To stop the manipulated cash receipt software-the rate in software was change from Rs. 699.00 to Rs. 678.12 and discount from 349.50 to 332.93 ;
- Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the answering opposite party in its endeavor to provide best quality consumer goods and merchandises at affordable prices to its valuable customers, often offers discounts on the goods and merchandises kept for sell at its retail stores across the country. In pursuit of the same, the answering opposite party offered 50% discount on kids boy jacket and made display for the same in its store premises. Said display clearly mentioned as “Kids Boy Jacket 50% Off” terms and condition apply. VAT Extra”. It was submitted that prior to the purchase of the said jacket, sales staff of the opposite party thoroughly explained the fact that the discount of 50% is on MRP and VAT shall be charged on the discounted price as per the scheme and as per the applicable laws. That complainant after being duly satisfied with the said conditional discount, purchased the said jacket with his free will. It was further submitted that opposite party never displayed or represented that there was flat 50% off on the said product but it was clearly displayed and represented that the said offer was subject to certain terms and conditions which included the representation that VAT shall be charged extra over the discounted price. Moreover said VAT which was charged from the complainant was not kept for the use of the opposite party but was taken as statutory tax for the purpose of depositing the same with the government exchequer and no part of the same was kept with the opposite party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Sanjeet Singh, Advocate counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of MRP Tag Ex.C-3, copy of Newspaper Advertisement Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh. Sarabjit Singh Tegh,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Jatinder Singh, Store Manager Ex.OP1, copy of authorization letter Ex.OP2, copies of display clippings Ex.OP3to OP5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased kitchen items and garments on 17.1.2017 and paid Rs. 1458.82 paise vide bill No.027/1080000031934 for Rs. 1458.82 paise . In this bill an item i.e. bill of jacket to the tune of Rs. 678.12 paise was included. Due to sale promotion scheme opposite party sold the jacket on 50% discount on price. As per price tag MRP was Rs. 699.00 inclusive of all taxes. However, opposite party charged Rs. 366.07 paise instead of Rs. 349.50 paise. In this way opposite party over charged Rs.16.57 paise over and above the price of the jacket in dispute. Copy of the retail invoice Ex.C-2 is on record besides the tag showing the maximum retail price of the jacket in dispute as Rs. 699/- accounts for Ex.C-3 . On the other hand , the case of the opposite party is that the opposite party offered 50% discount on Kids boy jacket and made display for the same . Said display clearly mentioned as ‘Kids Boy Jacket 50% off” terms and conditions apply. VAT extra”. However, this plea of the opposite party is not sustainable as on the one hand the opposite party itself gave the MRP Rs. 699.00 (inclusive of all taxes) vide tag Ex.C-2, on which 50% discount was given on MRP, on the other hand opposite party has taken a plea that display mentioned as “Kids Boy Jacket 50% Off” terms and condition apply VAT extra. In this regard Ld.counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon M/s. AEROCLUB (Woodland) Vs. Rakesh Sharma in Revision Petition No. 3477 of 2016 decided on 4.1.2017 of the Hon’ble National Commission in which it has been held that as under:-
“In our opinion, the advertisement in the aboveform is nothing but 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, tantamount to unfair trade practice, as found by both the Fora below . Significantly, under section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of cost of production and Maximum Retail price) Act, 2014, the “Maximum Retail Price” printed on the goods, a mandatory labeling requirement, at the relevant time, for pre-packaged goods, means “such price at which the consumer goods shall be sold in retail and such price shall include all taxes levied on the goods” In that view of the matter, having seen the word “Flat” in the advertisement, a consumer would be tempted to buy the goods under a bonafide belief that he would get a flat 40% off on the MRP. In our opinion, therefore, the defence of the Petitioners that they had charged VAT as per law is of no avail in so far as the issue of hand, viz. misleading advertisement, resulting in unfair trade practice, is concerned. We are in complete agreement with the Fora below that any discount falling short of “flat 40%: on the MRP would amount to unfair trade practice, as defined in the Act.
7. The abovesaid authority covers the case of the complainant from all its fours. As such it is evident that the opposite party has charged Rs. 16.57 paise in excess from the price of the jacket in dispute, which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. As such the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 16.57 paise from the opposite party.
8. In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 16.57 paise charged in excess. The complaint, as such is allowed accordingly. Complainant is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- while cost of litigation is assessed at Rs.2000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint until full and final realization . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 5.5.2017
