DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.90 of 2017
Date of institution: 08.02.2017 Date of decision : 01.03.2018
Kulwinder Singh son of Late Charanjit Singh, resident of K. No.86, Phase-6, Mohali.
…….Complainant
Vs
Adidas, Sammati, G-65, Ground Floor, The North Country Mall, NH 21, Mohali Kharar Road, Mohali through its MD/Proprietor/Incharge/Manager.
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Manoj Lakhotia, counsel for the OP.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant, after knowing about the discount offer of OP, visited its premises on 28.01.2017 for purchase of shoes, on which MRP of Rs.4,699/- (inclusive of all taxes) was mentioned. Retail invoice bill for amount of Rs.2,685/- inclusive of Rs.335.98 N.P. as VAT @ 14.3% was issued, despite the fact that this VAT cannot have been charged on the discounted price. That practice of charging extra VAT on the discounted MRP alleged to be an unfair trade practice and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of amount of Rs.335.98 N.P. with interest alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-.
2. In reply submitted by OP, it is claimed inter alia as if complaint not maintainable because complainant is not consumer as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, complaint based on vague and misconceived notions and also alleged to be false, vexatious and frivolous. Moreover it is claimed that issue regarding charging of VAT on discounted price is already under consideration of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.8848 of 2017 titled as M/s. Aero Club (Woodland) Vs. Rakesh Sharma and as such prayer made for adjourning the proceedings sine die. OP has acquired good market reputation for its range of products. Complainant after due application of mind accepted the terms and conditions of sale offer by OP by paying the sale consideration amount without protest and as such now he is estopped from claiming charges of extra amount. Complaint alleged to be filed on after thought facts with intention of harassing the OP. Like products are ordinarily sold at discount price in the market by charging VAT on the discounted price and as such it is claimed that no excess VAT charged on the discounted price and that OP did not follow any unfair trade practice and nor provided deficient services.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and C-2 and thereafter closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Rahul Kaushal, Store Manager and document Mark-A and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted by the parties but oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. Contents of complaint as well as of affidavit and invoice Ex.C-1 establishes that shoes were purchased by complainant after visiting OP at Kharar (District Mohali) on 28.01.2017 by paying price of Rs.2,685/- including VAT amount of Rs.335.98 N.P. @ 14.3%. ROD of Rs.0.48 N.P. was also charged. MRP of the purchased products mentioned as Rs.4,699/- (inclusive of all taxes) on the tag, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.C-2. It is not disputed that discount was granted on the MRP and it is on the discounted price that VAT @ 14.3% = Rs.335.98 N.P. has been charged. Practice of charging VAT on the discounted price has been held to be unfair trade practice as per law laid down by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi 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 as well as in case bearing First Appeal No.136 of 2017 titled as M/s Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju decided on 23.05.2017 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh. In view of this legal position, certainly OP adopted unfair trade practice by charging VAT on the discounted price, which caused mental harassment and agony to complainant, due to which he is entitled for refund of excess charged amount alongwith compensation for mental harassment and agony and also to litigation expenses.
6. Learned counsel for the OP vehemently contends that order dated 04.01.2017 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in case of M/s Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma (supra) has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition in that respect has been admitted and as such the proceedings of this complaint should be adjourned sine die. Provisions of Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC provide that mere filing of appeal does not amount to stay of operation of orders under challenge in appeal and as such on the same analogy, it has to be held that on mere filing of SLP alone, it cannot be inferred that operation of the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in above cited case of M/s Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma (supra) has been stayed. So long as the operation of law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission not stayed, the same to prevail and as such there is no need to adjourn the proceedings sine die.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP to refund excess charged amount of Rs.335.98 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 28.01.2017 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Forum, therefore, the parties through their counsel are directed to receive free certified copy of the order by hand and it will be the responsibility of the learned counsel for the parties to inform them accordingly. This direction issued by following the principle laid down by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.956 of 2017 titled as Partap Rai Sharma Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), decided on 25.01.2018. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
March 01, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
