DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.765 of 2016
Date of institution: 15.11.2016 Date of decision : 07.02.2018
Rohit son of V.B. Bhatnager, resident of A-701, Sushma Urban Views, Gazipur, Tehsil Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab.
…….Complainant
Vs
ADI SPORTS INDIA Pvt. Ltd., G.F.001, F.F. 40,41,42,43,44, Cosmo Plaza, NH-22, Mohali, Zirakpur 140603 through its authorised Manager or its authorised representative.
……..Opposite Party No.1
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., 5th Floor, Unitech Commercial Tower-II, Sector 45, Block No.B, Greenwoods City, Gurgaon -122001, Haryana India through its authorised Manager or its authorised representative.
……..Opposite Party No.2
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Present: Shri Kriti Kumar, counsel for the complainant.
OPs Ex-parte.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant by paying Rs.8,161/- to OP No.1 purchased jackets & shoes on 24.10.2016. Total MRP of the purchased articles is Rs.21,695/-. 70% discount on MRP had been offered for promoting the sale. After discount, the price of the shoes, and clothes/jackets came to Rs.7,348.20 N.P. including all taxes but OP No.1 charged extra VAT @ 14.3% on shoes but @ 6.05% on clothes/jackets on the discounted price. In this way Rs.813/- alleged to be charged in excess. OPs alleged to have provided deficient service and adopted unfair trade practice and as such prayer made for directing the OPs to refund extra charged amount of Rs.813/- with interest @ 18% per annum. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.
2. OPs are ex-parte in this case.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Written arguments filed by the complainant. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. Ex.C-1 is invoice of purchase of articles made by complainant from OP No.1 on 24.10.2016 on payment of Rs.8,161/-. Ex.C-2 having four pages mentions the MRP of jacket as Rs.3,999/- (inclusive of all taxes), whereas of the Hooded Track Top is Rs.2,799/- (inclusive of all taxes). After going through invoice Ex.C-1, it is made out that on MRP of the purchased products, discounts were given and after discount the total discounted price came to Rs.7,348.20 N.P. However, tax of amount of Rs.174.19 N.P. @ 6.05%, but @ 14.3% of amount of Rs.639.08 N.P. collected from the complainant. So it is obvious that OP No.1 the seller charged extra amount of Rs.813.27 N.P. on the discounted price of Rs.7,348.20 N.P. As the purchased products were mentioning MRP inclusive of all taxes, and as such after discount, the extra tax could not have been charged, but that has been done and as such the same amounts to unfair trade practice.
6. As per the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as M/s Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma bearing Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 and also by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in its judgment dated 23.05.2017 titled as M/s Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju bearing First Appeal No.136 of 2017, when MRP includes all taxes, then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately on the discounted price. So ratio of these cases clearly lays that after discount, no VAT can be charged and if the same is charged on the discounted price, then the same is unfair trade practice. In view of adoption of this unfair trade practice by the OPs, the complainant suffered mental harassment and agony and had to file this complaint and as such, he is entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment and also to litigation costs, but to reasonable amount, more so when OPs have not come to contest the complaint. As privity of contract was between complainant and OP No.1 and not with OP No.2, and as such complainant is consumer of OP No.1 and not of OP No.2. So complaint against OP No.1 merits acceptance but the same merits dismissal against OP No.2.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP No.1 to refund excess charged amount of Rs.813/- with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 24.10.2016 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.2,500/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,500/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP No.1 only. Complaint against OP No.2 is dismissed. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order by OP No.1. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Announced
February 07, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
