DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 Date of institution: 17.01.2017 Date of decision : 25.09.2017
Rohit Rana son of Yashpal Singh Rana, resident of House No.890, Sector 25, Panchkula.
……..Complainant
Versus
Adidas: Adisports India Pvt. Ltd., address: GF 001, FF-40,41,42,43,44 Cosmo Plaza, NH 22, Mohali Zirakpur, 140603 through its Proprietor/Incharge.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Sections 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Shri Mayur Kanwar, counsel for the complainant.
Opposite Party ex-parte.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Rohit Rana has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant had gone to the OP on 11.12.2016 to purchase a pair of sport shoes. The OP in order to promote sale had offered 50% discount on the MRP of the footwear. The complainant purchased a pair of shoes from the OP for MRP of Rs.7,999/- inclusive of all taxes. The OP had issued retail invoice for Rs.4,571/- which included Rs.571.93 as VAT @ 14.3%. The complainant raised objection for charging of VAT as the MRP of the shoes was inclusive of all taxes. However, the officials of the OP could not show any such notification by Taxation authorities favouring such practice of charging VAT extra on the discounted MRP. The officials told the complainant that if the VAT charges are not paid, they would not allow the complainant to buy the shoes. The complainant had paid to pay the amount of Rs.4,571/- for purchasing pair of shoes. The complainant even sent a legal notice to the OP on 13.12.2016 but to no avail. The complainant has alleged that the charging tax on the MRP is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to furnish any such notification favouring such practice of charging extra VAT on MRP during discount period; to refund him the extra amount of VAT charged to the tune of Rs.571.93 with interest; to pay him Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.
3. Shri Manoj Lakhotia, Advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of OP on 16.03.2017 and sought time to file POA and reply which was allowed for 03.04.2017. However, on 03.04.2017 neither anyone appeared on behalf of the OP nor POA/reply was filed. Hence, the OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.04.2017.
4. In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of price tag Ex.C-1; bill Ex.C-2 and legal notice dated 13.12.2016 Ex.C-3.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the price tag Ex.C-1 show that the price of the shoes was inclusive of all taxes. However, the OP at the time of issuance of invoice Ex.C-2 again charged tax to the tune of Rs.571.93 on the discounted price and this act on the part of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence and the written as well as oral submissions, it is established from the material placed on record i.e. tag Ex.C-1 that the price of the article was inclusive of all taxes. However, the OP again charged tax to the tune of Rs.571.93 while issuing invoice Ex.C-2. Even the OP has failed to respond to the legal notice dated 13.12.2016 Ex.C-3 sent by the complainant. The OP after putting in appearance through counsel did not appear nor filed any reply/evidence. The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties argue and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea, which was never put forward in pleadings. As such, the evidence adduced by the complainant remains unrebutted.
7. We are fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No.3723 of 2011 titled as The Branch Manager M/s. Shirt Palace Branch Black Bird Showroom Vs. Chandru H.C. decided on 16.01.2014 wherein it has been held that charging of VAT on the discounted price is unfair trade practice. A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015 decided on 01.09.2015 in case titled as Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and others in which it was held that the OPs cannot charge VAT on the discounted price where the MRP of the product is inclusive of all taxes
8. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the case law, we find that charging of taxes on the discounted price by the OP is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence we direct the OP to refund to the complainant Rs.571.93 (Rs. Five Hundred Seventy one and paise ninety three only) i.e. excess charges of tax and to pay him a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.
The OP is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decision till actual payment.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 25.09.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
