Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/662/2017

Suneel Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adi Sports - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Inder Singh

01 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/662/2017
Date of Institution	:	18/09/2017
Date of Decision	:	01/05/2018

 

Suneel Kumar son of Sh.Piar Singh, resident of H.No.588, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]    ADI Sports, Shop No.18, Ground Floor, D.T. Mall, I.T Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative.

[2]    Reebok India Company, through its Authorized Representative, Office No.6, Second Floor, Sector B, Pocket No.7, Plot No.11, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

       

PRESENT:	:	Sh. Jatin Parkash, Vice Counsel for Sh. Ravi Inder Singh, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	None for Opposite Parties.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 22.04.2017, the complainant purchased one pair of Shoes (Run Fusion) of Reebok India Company (OP No.2) from OP No.1 vide invoice Annexure C-1. The MRP of the product was Rs.2599/- on which the OPs offered discount of Rs.1299.50/- and the amount after discount came to Rs.1299.50/-.  However, OPs illegally levied VAT @12.5% i.e. Rs.162.44P/- on the said amount and charged the net amount of Rs.1462/-.  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 their written reply have not disputed the factual matrix of the case. However, it has been averred that the complainant was fully aware of the terms & conditions before purchasing the product in issue and after knowing about the discount offer and after being fully aware of the terms & conditions on which the discount offer could be availed, the Complainant after due application of mind and accepted the terms & conditions of the answering OPs by duly paying the consideration amount without any protest whatsoever. It has been urged that the goods in question were not sold at the MRP rather on the discounted price and the VAT was rightly levied as per the provisions of the VAT Act. It has been denied that the OPs have committed any illegality in charging VAT. 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 with utmost care and circumspection and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
5.         From a perusal of the record, it becomes evident that the complainant did purchase a product having MRP of Rs.2599/- (Annexure C-1). Further, it is evident from the invoice dated 22.04.2017 (Annexure C-1) that after giving discount on the said product, the total amount payable came to Rs.1299.50/- only, but, the OPs illegally charged an amount of Rs.1462/- from the complainant by adding Rs.162.44/- 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.162.44/- 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 @ 12% 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.

Announced                        

01.05.2018

                                 Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

      

                           Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”