State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ethnicity (A Division Of Shree Balaji ... vs Heena Aggarwal on 2 January, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UT CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. A/331/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/08/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/138/2016 of District DF-I) 1. ETHNICITY (A Division of Shree Balaji Ethnicity Retail Ltd.) Unit No. 224, 2nd Floor,Elante Mall, Plot No. 178/178A, Phase 1, Industrial Area, and Business Park, Chandigarh, through its Cluster Head ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Heena Aggarwal d/o Shri Ramesh Aggarwal add H.No. 3904/2, Street No. 10, New Janta Nagar, Daba Road, Ludhiana 141003 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jasbir Singh PRESIDENT DEV RAJ MEMBER PADMA PANDEY MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 02 Jan 2017 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 331 of 2016 Date of Institution : 13.12.2016 Date of Decision : 02.01.2017 Ethnicity (A Division of Shree Balaji Ethnicity Retail Ltd.), Unit No.224, 2nd Floor, Elante Mall, Plot No.178/178A, Phase-I, Industrial Area and Business Park, Chandigarh, through its Cluster Head. ......Appellant V e r s u s Heena Aggarwal d/o Shri Ramesh Aggarwal, Add : H.No.3904/2, Street No.10, New Janta Nagar, Daba Road, Ludhiana-141003. ...Respondent Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 31.8.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.138/2016.. Argued by: Mr.Tarun Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nikunj Dhawan, Advocate for the respondent Appeal No. : 332 of 2016 Date of Institution : 13.12.2016 Date of Decision : 02.01.2017 Ethnicity (A Division of Shree Balaji Ethnicity Retail Ltd.), Unit No.224, 2nd Floor, Elante Mall, Plot No.178/178A, Phase-I, Industrial Area and Business Park, Chandigarh, through its Cluster Head. ......Appellant V e r s u s Shivani Garg d/o Ashok Kumar Garg, Add : H.No.21, Ward No.5, Patran, District Patiala. ...Respondent Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 31.08.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.170/2016.. Argued by: Mr.Tarun Gupta,Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nikunj Dhawan, Advocate for the respondent. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT This order will dispose of aforementioned two appeals as identical questions of facts and law are involved therein. To dictate order, the facts are being taken from Appeal No.331 of 2016 titled as M/s ETHNICITY vs Heena Aggarwal.
2. In her complaint, it was stated by the respondent/complainant that on discounted Maximum Retail Price of a garment purchased by her, the appellant/OP has wrongly charged VAT. It was alleged that by doing so, the appellant has indulged into unfair trade practice. It was her specific case that an amount of Rs.24.45p has wrongly been charged. When her protest could not yield any result, she filed a consumer complaint claiming refund of above said amount, Rs.25,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint vide order dated 31.8.2016, by observing as under ;
"In the present case, admittedly the OP while mentioning the price of the product did not mention in the cash memo (Annexure C-1) the MRP and only the rate has been mentioned. The OP has failed to produce any evidence that on the product it put the tag indicating the MRP which was on higher side than the rate mentioned in the cash memo. Had the OP produced the evidence to the effect that it displayed the MRP of the product which was different from the rate, in that situation it could be said that the OP was within its right to charge the VAT on the price of the product which was not including MRP.
Under the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2006, certain guidelines have been provided so that the consumer cannot be charged over to the maximum price printed on the goods by the manufacturer. These guidelines are as follows:
1. Consumer goods mean all goods and items brought in the market for sale and are meant for the use and consumption of the consumers;
2. Cost of production means cost incurred directly or indirectly by the manufacturer in the production of goods;
3. Printing means printing of the cost of production and retail price at a visible place on the product in Hindi and English and the local language of the place it is sold; and
4. Maximum retail price means such price at which the product shall be sold in retail and such price shall include all taxes levied on the product.
Under the Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, all packed goods should carry certain essential information on the contents of the package, such as its weight or volume, the name and address of the manufacturer, the date of manufacture, and in case of food packages, the best before date and, of course, the maximum retail price (MRP).
Under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, manufacturers have to specify on all pre-packed goods meant for retail sale, the MRP inclusive of all taxes.
The legislation has made it mandatory for the manufacturers to printing of cost of production and maximum retail price on packaging of consumer goods so that consumer could not get overcharged by the agents/dealer.
Thus, it was mandatory for the OP to fix a tag on the product indicating the MRP or display the MRP of the product at a visible place. Since the OP did not display or put the tag on the product regarding MRP nor disclosed the MRP in the cash memo (Annexure C-1), so this conduct of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice as the OP kept the complainant in dark about the actual price of the product as well as about the tax charged on the product.
Since the OP has failed to display or put a tag on the product regarding its MRP, so it is presumed that the rate mentioned in Annexure C-1 was nothing but the MRP which included the VAT. No doubt the OP was within its right to charge the VAT extra on the price of the product, but, in the present case the OP has charged the VAT twice on the product. Firstly the rate of Rs.699/- itself included the VAT because the same was MRP and after discount of 30%, again the VAT was charged on the balance 70% amount. Thus, the VAT has been charged twice. It is important to note that 70% of the price included 70% of the VAT charges as well and again charging of VAT on the said 70% price amounts to collecting VAT twice from the complainant. The VAT was to be charged on the price of the product which was Rs.489/- after the discount of 30% and that Rs.489/- already included VAT. However, still a sum of Rs.24.47 was charged extra from the complainant as VAT. This amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The OP cannot be allowed to charge the VAT twice without disclosing the MRP. There is no dispute that the OP has charged less than the MRP after giving the discount of 30%, but, in this way it cleverly charged VAT twice which cannot be allowed nor the OP was legally entitled to charge the VAT twice."
4. By making reference to the provisions of Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2006, it was rightly said by the Forum that the Maximum Retail Price would mean such price at which the product shall be sold in retail and such price shall include all taxes levied on the product offered for sale. By making further reference to Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, it was said that it is incumbent upon a trader to show the Maximum Retail Price against a product put for sale. It was noted, as a matter of fact, that no such tag was put on the product sold showing its MRP. By noting as above, it was said that such act would mean to unfair trade practice. It was further noted that MRP includes all other taxes and on the reduced price, VAT cannot be imposed again.
5 The view expressed by the Forum is fortified by the judgments of this Commission in "Shoppers Stop and others Versus Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others", First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 01.09.2015, "Benetton India Private Limited Vs. Ravinderjit Singh" Appeal No.61 of 2016, decided on 18.02.2016, "Mother Care Reha Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kunal Kinra" Appeal No.261 of 2016 decided on 20.9.2016, M/s Aero Club(Woodland) Vs Harpreet Singh, Appeal No.318 of 2016 decided on 1.12.2016 and A to Z Fashion Pvt.(Woodland ) Vs Priya Mehta, Appeal No.323 of 2016 decided on 8.12.2016.
In view of the above, no case is made out to interfere on merits, in the order under challenge. Faced with the situation, counsel for the appellant stated that for loss of an amount of Rs.24.45p, a huge amount has been granted by the Forum towards compensation and litigation expenses.
6. After hearing arguments of the Counsel for the parties, we accept the contention raised. For mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses, an amount of Rs.5000/- under each count has been granted. We feel that the amount granted is on the higher side. Accordingly we reduce compensation for mental and physical harassment from Rs.5000/- to Rs.2500/- and litigation expenses from Rs.5000/- to Rs.2500/-. With this modification, the appeal stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.
7. Certified copy of this order, be placed on the file of Appeal bearing No.332 of 2016.
8. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
9. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
02.01.2017 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER JS [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jasbir Singh] PRESIDENT [ DEV RAJ] MEMBER [ PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER