Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/530/2017

RAHUL GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

YOUGAL SONS - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GUPTA

03 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No                 53/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution     28-05-2014

 Date of Decision      :     14 -08-2018

 

Rahul Gupta,

S/O Sh.Ashok Kumar Gupta,

R/O 53 Sarwal Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                     V/S

Yougal Sons Fashions Pvt.ltd.

Through its Proprietor,

FF-10 City Square,Jammu J&K.

                                                                                                                                                Opposite party

 

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                               Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chouhan                                       Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

      

 Mr.Rohit Gupta,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Jugal Kishore Gupta,Advocate for OP,present.

 

                                                             ORDER

 

                              Shorn of unnecessary details, facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that on 02-02-2014 complainant said to have  purchased some ready-made garments from different stores and one jacket from Numero Uno Exclusive which is franchise of OP.Allegation of complainant is that the Maximum Retail Price (MRP)written on the price tag attached with the jacket was Rs.3599/-(incl.of all taxes),it is important to mention here that as the Sale announced by the OP was going on, complainant was attracted to the same and was given 40% discount on purchase of said goods and the computerized generated bill/cash memo that was given to him clearly shows:-

    Gross Amount     3599

    Less discount       1439.60

   Total                          2159.40

   Round off                      0.31

   Net bill amount       2267

   Taxable amount       2159

   Vat-5%

                      This clearly shows that the OP charged 5% VAT i.e.Rs.108/-on Rs.2159/-and the complainant was asked to pay Rs.2267/-instead of Rs.2159/Copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-A).Complainant further submitted that while checking the bill he came to know that OPs have charged 5% VAT on the price charged on jacket, he telephonically informed OP on Phone No.2564442 and complained about the overcharging VAT on MRP(Incl.of all taxes) however, he was surprised to hear from the person attending the phone call that he is just a petty employee he cannot do anything about it and the attendant also told him that a number of customers were complaining this practice of charging VAT on MRP and the software used for billing is provided by the OP and he could not do anything about it. Complainant further submitted that on internet he came to know that some consumers filed a complaint before Sh.Manoj Prabhakar,Deputy Controller Consumer Protection and he registered a case against one Gandhi Nagar Showroom of Kapsons and slapped an amount of penalty of Rs.20,000/-and this was done in the month of January,2014 and the same was published in the press. It is important to mention here that a similar case has been decided by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Banglore which has ruled out that charging 5% VAT on a product with a price tag which advertised MRP as ‘inclusive of taxes ‘amounts to unfair trade practice.Allegation of complainant is that this act of OP has caused loss of Rs.108/-but it has caused undue harassment & mental agony to him. Nevertheless act of Op has caused loss of lakhs of rupees to the gullible consumers across the state and even country. In the final analysis, complainant prays for refund of Rs.108/ i.e. the excess amount charged by OP and in addition also prays for compensation of Rs.1.10 lacs including litigation charges.

              On the other hand,Op filed written version and resisted the complaint on the ground that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. A bare perusal of the Retail Invoice enclosed by the complainant with the complaint will show that the same has been issued by NUMERO UNO EXCLUSIVE through its Franchises M/S Yougal Sons Fashions Pvt.Lt thereforeOP being merely an agent/franchise of M/S NUMERO UNO,no relief can be granted against the OP.The complaint against the OP as such being not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. That M/S Yougal Sons Fashions Pvt.Ltd.is a private limited company incorporated under Companies Act,1956 and therefore, the present complaint against the OP  through its proprietor is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. That the discount on the products of NUMERO UNO was given by the Op to the complainant strictly as per the instructions of M/S NUMERO UNO.The OP had clearly displayed at its counter of M/S NUMERO UNO and also of other companies that VAT will be charged separately on discounted amount. The complainant was also apprised of the charging of the VAT on the discounted amount of the jacket intended to be purchased by him and the complainant without any objection purchased the jacket in question and made the payment for the same as per the invoice without any protest. The jacket having been purchased by the complainant after being fully aware of the terms and conditions of the sale being organized by the OP of the products of M/S NUMERO UNO and as per the discount conditions displayed on the counter, is stopped from raising the plea of charging of VAT by the OP unlawfully. Lastly it is prayed that complaint be dismissed.

            Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit. Complainant has placed on record retail invoice and copy of news item.

             On the other hand,OP adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar Incharge M/S Yougal Sons Fashions Pvt.Ltd.

                    We have perused case file and heard L/Cs for parties at length.

                    Since point in dispute squarely revolves around the point, as to whether or not VAT forms the part of MRPor not, therefore, we would proceed to determine the point on the basis of relevant pleadings and law governing the subject.

                   Admittedly, complainant purchased garments from OP on 40% discount,therefore,after giving discount to the extent of 40%, price slashed down from Rs.3599/-to Rs.2267.However,OP again added VAT on sum of Rs.2159/- to the extent of 5% and by adding sum of Rs.108/-charged total sum of Rs.2267/-.In order to determine the point, as to whether or not Retail Sale Price, includes other taxes, including local taxes, we would proceed to take note of, Legal Metrology (Packaged commodities)Rules,2011(hereinafter referred as, Rules of 2011).

     Rule 2(m)of Rules 2011 defines Retail Sale Price and same reads as under:

        2(m)retail sale price means the maximum price at which the commodity in a packaged form may be sold to the ultimate consumer and the price shall be printed on the package in the manner given below;

     Maximum or Max.retail price inclusive of all taxes or in the form MRP Rsincl of all taxes after taking into account the fraction of less than fifty paise to be rounded off to the preceding rupee and fraction of above 50 paise and upto 95 paise to the rounded off to fifty paise

              

                   From the Perusal of definition given under rules 2011,there remains no manner of doubt that, MRP, inscribed on the package always includes all taxes. There is nothing under the Rules 2011,which differentiates between local taxes and central taxes,therefore,onces rules of 2011 are applicable to the commodities sold in the market to the consumers, in that event, it would be travercity of justice to interpret the rules 2011 in a manner which leaves room for fleecing the gullible consumers of their hard earned money by adding taxes which otherwise are not applicable over and above the, MRP, shown on the packages.

          Said apart, there is specific prohibition contained under rule 18(2) of rules 2011, which inter alia, prohibits retailer from selling any commodity in packed form at a price exceeding the retail sale price thereof. Relevant clause of rule 18 reads thus

     18.Provisions relating to wholesale dealer and retail dealers

     (2) No retail dealer or other person including manufacturer,packer,importer and wholesale dealer shall make any sale of any commodity in packed form at a price exceeding the retail sale price thereof.

        (3)***************************

       (4)***************************

      (5)****************************

      (6)***************************

     (7)**************************

    (8)***************************”

                From the perusal of rule 18(2)of Rules of 2011,it becomes conspicuous that legislature in its wisdom thought it fit to further elucidate by incorporating prohibition clause, so as to leave no room for arbitrary interpretation of MRP,therefore,in no uncertain word incorporated prohibitory clause under rule 18(2) whereby it has been prohibited inter alia, to sell the commodities at a price exceeding the MRP,which otherwise as per rules of 2011, includes all taxes. Hence, complainant successfully bring home the point of unfair trade practice on the part of OP,in charging VAT, over and above the ,MRp,therefore, same calls for interference.

                Therefore, in view of foregoing reasons, complaint filed by complainant is allowed and OP is directed to refund Rs.108/-and cost of litigation is quantified as sum of Rs.10,000/-.In addition, punitive damages are quantified as Rs.20,000/-.The OP is further directed to desist from charging taxes over and above Maximum Retail Price mentioned on the packages. The OP shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file after its due compilation be consigned to records.

Order per President                                              Khalil Choudhary

 

Announced                                                            (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

14 -08-2018                                                                 President

                                                                              District Consumer Forum

                                                                                    Jammu

Agreed by                                                  

                                                            

                                                        

Ms.Vijay Angral                                                .

Member                              

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member