Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/583/2017

Monika - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADI Sports (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/583/2017
Date of Institution	:	22/08/2017
Date of Decision	:	03/05/2018

 

Monika daughter of late Sh. Ashok Kumar Chhabra resident of House No.1061, Sector 12A, Panchkula, Haryana.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

ADI Sports (India) Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.18, Ground Floor, DT Mall, IT Park, Chandigarh-160101 through its Manager.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Manoj Lakhotia, Counsel for OP.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations are, during the sale on 21.5.2017, OP had offered 50% discount on apparels at its shop.  The complainant tempted and appealed by the aforesaid offer, purchased slippers with MRP of Rs.899/- inclusive of all taxes on which she was offered discount of 50%. When the physical copy of the invoice was handed over, the complainant was shocked to see that she was charged Rs.56.19 as 12.5% VAT while in the discount of 50%, this VAT was already included. The act of OP amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, the instant consumer complaint praying for refund of the amount of VAT alongwith compensation and litigation charges.
2.         OP had furnished reply. It was denied, the said item was sold or purchased by the complainant. The invoice was in the name of one Sh.Ravi with whom the complainant had no connection. It was claimed, 50% discount was given and the VAT had to be charged extra from the purchaser.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.         We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.  After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
5.         Under paragraph No.1 of the consumer complaint on the date of purchase i.e. 21.5.2017 the complainant was handed over a physical copy of the invoice from where she came to know that she was charged Rs.56.19 as 12.5% VAT. It means, she had read the contents of the invoice (Annexure C-1).  A perusal of the tax invoice shows name of purchaser as Sh. Ravi and his mobile number mentioned as 8591859144.  Per complainant, she had no connection with aforesaid, Sh. Ravi and the purchase was made by her. Per this record, if the purchase was made by the complainant, then she had also come to know on that day itself, tax invoice is in the name of Sh. Ravi who is not a complainant before this Forum.
6.         The second clarification which the complainant could have given, invoice was wrongly issued in the name of Sh. Ravi instead of her, was by way of mentioning her mobile number.  In the tax inovice mobile number mentioned is 8591859144.  However, neither there is any pleading, the said mobile number belongs to the complainant nor any such proof had been led. In these circumstances, the affidavit furnished by the OP appears to be believable and the claim of the complainant is not connected in her name as per recitals contained in the tax invoice (Annexure C-1).  Merely in possession of a tax invoice or to say a wrapper will not lead to the conclusion, these were purchased by the complainant.
7.         In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint.  Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
8.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
03/05/2018	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President