Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/826/2016

Rajiv Mahajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adi Sports - Opp.Party(s)

Sukaam Gupta

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/826/2016
Date of Institution	:	19/09/2016
Date of Decision	:	27/02/2017

 

Rajiv Mahajan s/o Sh. S.C. Mahajan r/o #192, Top Floor, 16 Acre, Barnala, Punjab.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Adi Sports, Shop No.18, Ground Floor, DT Mall IT Park, Chandigarh through its Manager.

……Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

Argued by	:	Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Counsel for complainant
	:	OP ex-parte.

 

Per S.S. Panesar, President

1.         Briefly stated, on 12.3.2016, the complainant alongwith his friends had gone to the store/outlet of OP to purchase goods.  The OP, in order to promote sale of the products, offered various discounts and on 12.3.2016 it was 50% on MRP. The complainant purchased one lower for an amount of Rs.1,999/-, which was inclusive of all taxes. The OP thereafter issued a retail invoice/receipt dated 2.3.2016 (Annexure C-2) for an amount of Rs.1,049/-.  When the complainant saw the invoice, it was found that the OP had charged extra VAT and, therefore, asked its official to waive off the same as the MRP was inclusive of all taxes, but, the OP refused to do so.  Left with no option, the complainant had to pay the billed amount alongwith excess VAT. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.  
2.         OP did not appear despite due service, therefore, it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.1.2017.
3.         The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant.
5.         From perusal of the record it becomes evident that the complainant did purchase one lower for an amount of Rs.1,999/- which was inclusive of all taxes as is evident from the tag of the product (Annexure C-1).  After giving 50% discount, the price of the product was Rs.999.50 only, but, however, the OP charged an amount of Rs.1,049.00 and thereby overcharged an amount of Rs.49.50 from the complainant. The complainant has filed a duly sworn affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as despite due service, the OP did not opt to appear and contest the claim of the complainant which also amounts to implied admission of the claim.
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 OP in charging VAT on a product, price of which was inclusive of all taxes, 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.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint is partly allowed and the OP is directed as under :-

 (i)    To refund to the complainant Rs.49.50 (say Rs.50/-) being the excess amount of VAT;

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

	Sd/-	Sd/-
27/02/2017	[Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S. Panesar]
hg	Member	President