DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 290 dated 13.06.2019.
Date of decision: 27.11.2020.
Rohit Sharma S/o.Sh. Ajay Sharma, R/o.VIII Raipur Kathlaur, Pathankot, Punjab-143534.
..…Complainant
Versus
F20 Fashion Obsession Shop No.44 & 47, 2nd Floor Westend Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, Punjab through its Manager or authorized representative. …..Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT
MS. JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Samdish, Advocate.
For OP : Exparte.
ORDER
PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT
1. This complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by the above named complainant on the allegations that on 09.08.2017, he purchased one product from the OP for a sum of Rs.475/- against retail invoice of even date. The MRP on the said product was Rs.699/-, which was inclusive of all taxes. OP offered a discount of 35% on the MRP. After deducting the discount of 35%, the price of the product came to Rs.454.35 including taxes. However, the OP charged GST 5% (SGST of 2.5% amounting to Rs.11.61 and CGST of 2.5% amounting to Rs.11.61). As a result, the complainant had to pay Rs.490/- including Rs.10/- for the bag. According to the complainant, the OP was not entitled to charge GST on the discounted price and this act on the part of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice. In the end, it has been requested that the OP be directed to refund GST amount of Rs.23.61 along with 18% interest and be further directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.
2. Upon notice initially Sh. Rohit Kapoor, owner of the OP appeared in person and sought adjournment to file written statement. However, subsequently he absented himself from the proceedings and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.12.2019.
3. In exparte evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 and thereafter, closed evidence.
4. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.
5. As per retail invoice Ex. C2, the complainant is shown to have purchased a product from the OP for a sum of Rs.454.35. The retail price of the produce is mentioned as Rs.699/-. OP gave a discount of Rs.244.65 and on the discounted price, charged Rs.22.72 as GST and in aggregate charged Rs.490/-. 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. Therefore, the OP was not entitled to charge GST on the discounted price of Rs.454.35 as it amounts to unfair trade practice. OP is, therefore, held liable to refund this amount as claimed in the complaint along with interest @7% per annum from the date of invoice till payment. OP is further held liable to pay compensation and damages of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expanses of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
6. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed exparte in terms that the OP will refund Rs.23.61 with interest @7% per annum from the date of invoice till payment. The OP shall further pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to complainant. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Jyotsna Thatai) (K.K. Kareer)
Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:27.11.2020.
Gobind Ram.
