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

Consumer Complaint No.495 of 2016

                                                 Date of institution:  17.08.2016                                                      Date of decision   :  04.05.2018

Jasdeep Singh, resident of # 1248, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

…….Complainant

Vs

Aditya Birla Fashion and retail limited (formerly Pantaloon Fashion & Retail Limited), Pantaloons Division, Paras Downtown Square Mall, Ground Floor, Zirakpur through its Store Manager.

                                                                ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Sukaam Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Sapan Sharma, Store Manager on behalf of OP.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant on 19.07.2016 after visiting store/outlet of OP purchased certain clothes therefrom. Discount of 50% on the MRP was given. MRP of the woolen top was Rs.1,199/-, but VAT of Rs.36.27 N.P. charged. That practice of charging VAT on the discounted price of the product having MRP inclusive of all taxes, alleged to be unfair trade practice. So this complaint for seeking refund of extra charged amount of Rs.36.27 N.P. with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment namely 19.07.2016 till actual payment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- more claimed.

2.             In reply filed by OP, it is claimed that false and motivated complaint submitted deliberately on afterthought version for getting undue enrichment at expenses of OP.  It is claimed that as per display/advertisement, VAT to be charged extra on the discounted price. Admittedly offer of 50% discount was given. VAT was charged on the discounted price as per provisions of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Complainant was fully aware that VAT to be charged extra on the discounted price. It is claimed that some persons have adopted practice of seeking refuge of Consumer Forums to extract gain and malign the reputation of OP. Admittedly payable price was inclusive of all taxes, but VAT to be charged extra. This fact was duly communicated to the consumer by display of advertisement at the cash counter. It is claimed that complainant willingly purchased the product with ulterior motive of extracting illegal gains, but without raising protest regarding charging of extra amount. Allegations regarding adoption of unfair trade practice or of rendering deficient services denied alongwith other averments of the complaint.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1  and Ex.C-2 and Mark-A and thereafter his counsel closed evidence. On the other hand,   Shri Sapan Sharma, Store Manager of the OP tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and thereafter closed evidence. 

4.             Written arguments submitted by the OP only. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Perusal of invoice Ex.C-2 alongwith contents of the written statement and submitted affidavit of representative of OP as well as of complainant himself establishes that product having MRP of Rs.1,199/- was purchased by complainant and offer of 50% discount was given thereon. Ex.C-1 tag shows as if MRP of Rs.1,199/- is inclusive of all taxes. If the MRP is inclusive of all taxes, then charging of VAT on the discounted price certainly is 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. So in view of charging of VAT on the discounted price, OP adopted unfair trade practice. Due to adoption of this unfair trade practice, complainant suffered mental harassment and agony and as such he is entitled for compensation of reasonable amount alongwith litigation expenses.

6.             Counsel for complainant has placed reliance on Mark-A, copy of order passed in CC No.511 of 2015 titled as Dinesh Prashad Raturi Vs. Anil Kumar Store Manager & another decided on 12.02.2016 by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT Chandigarh for arguing that in similar circumstances, direction for refund of extra charged VAT with compensation for mental harassment and agony has been allowed. Judgment Mark-A is not binding on this Forum, but keeping in view circumstances of the case, qua charging of extra VAT and the amount thereof, it is fit and appropriate to allow compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- more only.

7.             Though it is claimed that advertisement was displayed about charging of VAT extra on the discounted price, but no snapshot of that advertisement produced and nor it is mentioned as to at what conspicuous place of the show room, such advertisement was put up. So story regarding disclosure to complainant of the scheme of charging VAT extra on the discounted price as put forth by OP is not believable. Complainant claims through complaint as well as affidavit that though he refused to purchase the product due to charging of extra VAT, but OP claimed that invoice has already been generated and as such same cannot be cancelled. It is on account of this that complainant had to pay the billed amount including excess charged VAT amount. So it is not a case in which VAT paid by complainant without protest.

8.             No other point argued.

9.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP to refund excess charged amount of Rs.36.27 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 19.07.2016 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. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

May 04, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member