Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/479/2017

Sarita Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sahil Dawar

08 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/479/2017
Date of Institution	:	27/06/2017
Date of Decision	:	08/01/2018

 

Sarita Kumari r/o House No.1263, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Adi Sports (India) Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory, having its office at Plot No.92,Extended Lal Dora, Abadi Village Kapashera, Delhi, Delhi-110037.

2.     Adidas India Marketing Private Limited, through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory, having its office at 5^th Floor, Unitech Commercial Tower-II, Sector #45, Block #B, Greenwoods City, Gurgaon, Haryana.

3.     Adidas India Marketing Private Limited, through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory, having its Office at 2^nd Floor, Sector-B, Pocket No.7, Plot No.11, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

……Opposite Parties

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

                                                               

       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sahil Dawar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Manoj Lakhotia, Counsel for OPs.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that tempted and appealed by the online offer given by   OP-1, the complainant ordered two socks with MRP of Rs.799/- and Rs.699/-. The complainant was given discount of 50% and 40% respectively on the purchase price.  When the delivery was made at the complainant’s residence, she noticed that VAT of Rs.41/- @ 5% had been charged.  As per the complainant, she was forced to accept the goods as the person who came to effect delivery refused to take the goods back citing that he was merely an employee of the courier company. 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.         OP-1 in its written statement has averred that the complainant was fully aware of the terms and conditions before purchasing the products in issue.  It has been averred that since the merchandise in question was not brought by the complainant at the marked price, no VAT was charged from or was paid by her on the said product.  Rather, the discount was duly applied to the marked price and thereafter VAT was charged on the products as per law. It has been stated that the complainant’s understanding of the applicable MRP law is erroneous in as much as there is no bar qua collection of tax in relation to MRP products especially when the product is sold below the MRP. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OPs 2 & 3 in their separate written statement have averred that the alleged VAT @ 5% amounting to Rs.41/- had been charged on the sale made at the web portal operated by OP-1.  It has been stated that OPs 2 & 3 have no role in the billing and accounting procedures of OP-1 and, thus, they are in no way liable to refund the amount so charged towards VAT or otherwise. The goods in question were not sold at the MRP rather on discounted price and the VAT was rightly levied as per law.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs 2 & 3 have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. 
6.         From a perusal of the record and tags (Annexure C-1), it becomes evident that the complainant did make purchase of a pack of knee socks and a pair of liner having MRP of Rs.799/- and Rs.699/- respectively. Further, it is evident from the invoice dated 9.6.2017 (Annexure C-2) that after giving discount on the said products, the amounts payable came to Rs.399/- and Rs.419/- respectively (totaling Rs.818/-), but, the OPs illegally charged an amount of Rs.859/- from the complainant by adding Rs.20/- and Rs.21/- (totaling Rs.41/-) as VAT. The OPs have failed to substantiate their act either through some Govt. notification or case law.
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. As such, when MRP included all the taxes, charging of extra VAT on the discounted price would certainly amount to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Hence, the OPs are 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 partly allowed.  The OPs are directed as under :-

(i)     To refund to the complainant Rs.41/- being the amount of VAT wrongly charged from her;

(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 OPs 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.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
08/01/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member