DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.230 of 14.6.2017
Decided on: 23.8 .2017
Sadhu Singh s/o Sh.Hazara Singh R/o # 124-B, Azad Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Adidas , Sammati Ent, Shop No.2, Kainthal Complex, Bhupendra Road, Patiala through its Prop/ Sales. Manager.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Paramjit Singh Walia, Advocate,
counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Sadhu Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one pair of shoes of the brand of “Adidas” on discount @ 40% on the MRP of Rs.3999/-, as offered by the OP, vide retail invoice No.SC-923 dated 9.6.2017. It is stated that the gross bill amount of the said item after discount came to Rs.2399.40-, while OP charged from him Rs.2743/- after having added Rs.343.11- as VAT. It is further stated that the OP could not charge excess amount on account of VAT because the MRP of the item, included all the taxes. He brought the matter into the notice of OP who told that VAT is extra as per T&C and was charged as per directions and instructions given by the manufacturer. The charging of excess amount on account of VAT is not only illegal but also amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the OP to refund the excess amount charged on account of VAT and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses.
3. On being put to notice, OP failed to come present despite service and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Ex.C1, is the bill vide which the complainant purchased the aforesaid item from the OP. In the said bill, the M.R.P of the item in question has been mentioned as Rs.3999/-.After giving discount the payable amount came to Rs.2399.40 but the OP after having added Rs.343.11 on account of VAT @ 14.3% , has charged an amount of Rs.2743/- from the complainant. On the tag , Ex.C2, pasted on the box of the shoes, maximum retail price, (hereinafter referred to be as M.R.P.) has been mentioned as Rs.3999/- inclusive of all taxes. It may be stated that as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014, no extra amount over and above the M.R.P. printed on the goods could be charged, even the same has been sold on discount, as M.R.P. has already been included all taxes levied on the goods. Thus, by charging extra amount on account of Vat, the OP has not only committed deficiency in service but also indulged into unfair trade practice and is liable to refund the same to the complainant. It is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses. In the case titled as M/s Aeroclub (woodland) Versus Rakesh Sharma, Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016, decided on 04 Jan 2017, the Hon’ble National Commission has already held that “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 at 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. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.P. in the following manner:
- To refund to the complainant Rs.343.11 rounded off Rs.344/-charged on account of Vat.
- To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation, for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.5,000/-towards costs of litigation
The O.P. is further directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 23.8 .2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
