DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                    Consumer Complaint No.565 of 2016

                                               Date of institution:  08.09.2016                                         Date of decision   :  13.07.2017

Seema wife of Ashwani Kumar, resident of Anukampa, Main Street, Mohan Nagar, Dera Bassi.

                                                                ….Complainant                                                 Versus

AdiSports India Pvt. Ltd., GF 001, FF 40,41,42,43,44, Cosmo Plaza, NH-22, Mohali Zirakpur through its Proprietor/Incharge/Manager.

                                                                …..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member         

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Saurav Bhatia, counsel for the complainant.

                OP ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Seema 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 purchased T-Shirt, pants and workout bra of Reebok from the OP vide bill dated 11.06.2016. The total MRP of these products was Rs.8096.00. The OP offered 40%  and 60% discount on the MRP of these product.  However, in the bill the OP had charged VAT @ 6.05% to the tune of Rs.274.54. The complainant also purchased a pair of shoes and socks of Adidas the MRP of which was Rs.6898/- and 40% discount was also offered on these products by the OP.  However, in the bill of these items also, OP had charged VAT @ 6.05% and 14.3% on the discounted price. The complainant raised objection to charging of VAT on the discounted price but the official of the OP could not show any such notification favouring such practice of charging VAT on the discounted price. Thus, charging of VAT on the discounted prices is an unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund her Rs.821.86 charged as VAT on the discounted prices; to pay her Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment  and   Rs.35,000/- as  litigation costs.

3.             The OP was duly served. However, none appeared for it and accordingly the OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.12.2016.

4.             In order to prove the case, the learned counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW-1/1; copies of bill Ex.C-1 and C-2; four Tags Ex.C-3 and another tag Ex.C-4.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the MRP of the products were Rs.8096.00 and Rs.6898/- on which 60 % and 40% discount were offered by the OP. However, the OP after giving discounts on MRP again charged VAT from the complainant which is unfair trade practice on its part.

6.             After hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant, and going through the pleadings, evidence produced and written arguments, we find that there is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant. It is well established from the tags Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 that the MRP of the products purchased by the complainant were inclusive of all taxes.   The OPs had offered discounts of 60% and 40% on the MRP of various products purchased by the complainant vide bills Ex.C-1 and C-2.  However, the OP has again charged VAT @ 6.05% and 14.3% on the products purchased by the complainant on the discounted prices, the total of which comes to the tune of Rs.821.86. In our view when MRP is inclusive of all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. Here we are fortified by the similar view taken by 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. A similar question also 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.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the aforestated case law, we find that charging of VAT on the discounted prices by the OP is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.   Hence we direct the OPs to refund to the complainant Rs.821.86 (Rs. Eight Hundred Twenty one and paise eighty six only) i.e. excess charges of VAT on the various products purchased by the complainant  and to pay her a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                The OP is also directed to comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of order till its realization

                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: 13.07.2017    

                                        (A.P.S.Rajput)                                          President

 (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member