Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/571/2017

Jobanprince Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADI SPORTS adidas - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet Singh

01 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/571/2017
Date of Institution	:	10/08/2017
Date of Decision	:	01/12/2017

 

Jobanprince Singh s/o Harkewal Singh r/o #1654, Housefed 2, Sector 79, Mohali Punjab.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

ADI Sports Adidas Shop No.18, Ground Floor, DT Mall, IT Park, Kishangarh, Manimajra Chandigarh through its Manager or authorised representative.

……Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Harpreet Saini, Counsel for complainant.
	:	OP ex-parte

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that vide invoice dated 15.3.2017, the complainant purchased one product from the OP after paying consideration of Rs.183/-.  The MRP of the said product was Rs.349/-, inclusive of all taxes, and in order to promote sale, the OP had offered discount of 50% on MRP. After giving the said discount, the price of the product came to Rs.174.50, but, the OP by illegally adding VAT @ 5% on the same, charged a total sum of Rs.183/- from the complainant. The complainant resisted the action of the OP, but, he was forced to pay the final amount of Rs.183/-. Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         The OP did not appear despite due service.  Hence, it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 3.10.2017.
3.         The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the complainant.
5.         From a perusal of the record it becomes evident that the complainant did make purchase of a product (socks) from the OP having MRP of Rs.349/-. It is further evident from the invoice dated 15.3.2017 (Annexure C-1) that after giving discount on the said product, the total amount payable came to Rs.174.50 only, but, the OP illegally charged an amount of Rs.183/- from the complainant by adding Rs.8.72 as VAT. The complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint.
6.         The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as, despite due service, the OP chose not to appear and contest the claim of the complainant which also amounts to implied admission of the claim.
7.      The simple question for determination in the present case is whether MRP includes all taxes, including VAT, and whether, after discount, VAT can be charged or not? A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 1.9.2015 in case titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Versus Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others”, wherein it has been held that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. In another decision in Appeal No.61 of 2016, decided on 18.02.2016, in case titled as “Benetton India Private Limited Vs. Ravinderjit Singh”, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant (Benetton India Pvt. Limited) has held that if it is clearly mentioned as MRP inclusive of all taxes, charging of extra VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice. The ratio of above stated pronouncements is squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, the act of the OP in charging VAT on the discounted price clearly proves deficiency in service on its part.  As such, the OP is liable to refund the excess amount of VAT besides compensation for mental agony, physical pain and litigation expenses to the complainant.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed.  The OP is directed as under :-

(i)     To refund to the complainant Rs.8.72 (say Rs.9/-) being the amount of VAT wrongly charged from him;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.         This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
01/12/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member