Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/374/2017

Mr. Amandeep Singh Meho - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adi Sports (I) Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Arshdeep Singh Arora

16 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/374/2017
Date of Institution	:	28/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	16/08/2017

 

Amandeep Singh Meho, R/o H.No.410, Phase-I, Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]    ADI Sports (I) Pvt. Limited, through its Principal Officer/ Manager, Shop No. 121-122, D.T. Mall, I.T. Park, Chandigarh.

[2]    United Colors of Benetton, also known as Benetton India, through its Principal Officer/ Managing Director/ CEO, having its registered and Corporate Office at Plot No. 25, Block B, Infocity Part-1, Sector 34, Gurugram, Haryana – 122001.

……Opposite Parties

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

                                                               

       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Arshdeep Singh Arora, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.
	:	Sh. Krishan M. Vohra, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Sumeet Goel, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 29.01.2017, the complainant made purchase from OPs vide invoice Annexure C-1. The MRP of the product was Rs.2799/-/- on which the OPs offered discount of Rs.1399.50/- and the amount after discount came to Rs.1399.50/-.  However, OPs illegally levied VAT @ 5% i.e. Rs.69.98/- on the said amount and charged the net amount of Rs.1469.48/-.  Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         The OPs in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix of the case. However, it has been averred that the complainant has failed to understand the meaning of MRP where the OPs undertake to bear the payment of VAT but the discounted scheme is for clearance where VAT has to be paid on the sales as condition of sales. It has been denied that the OPs have committed any illegality in charging VAT.  It has been contended that the OPs have not charged tax twice. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the Ld. Counsel for the contesting parties.
5.         From a perusal of the record, it becomes evident that the complainant did purchase a Jeans (Denim Pants) having MRP of Rs.2799/-. Further, it is evident from the invoice dated 29.01.2017 (Annexure C-1) that after giving discount on the said product, the total amount payable came to Rs.1399.50/- only, but, the OPs illegally charged an amount of Rs.1469.48/- from the complainant by adding Rs.69.98/- as VAT. The OPs have failed to substantiate their act either through some Govt. notification or case law. When MRP included all the taxes, charging of VAT on the discounted price would amount to indulging in unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
6.      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 OPs in charging VAT on the discounted price clearly proves deficiency in service on their part.  As such, the OPs are liable to refund the excess amount of VAT besides compensation for mental agony, physical pain and litigation expenses to the complainant.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  The OPs are directed as under :-

(i)    To refund to the complainant Rs.69.98/- (say Rs.70/-) being the amount of VAT wrongly charged;

(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.

 

8.         This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they 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.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/08/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member