DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.336 of 26.8.2016
Decided on: 26.4.2017
Rajesh Kumar Nehra s/o Sh.Baldev Krishan Nehra, R/o #103, Ekta Kunj, Back Side SBI, Officers Colony, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Aditya Birlas Fashion & Retail Ltd.(formerly Pantaloons Fashion & Retail Ltd.) OMAXE Mall, G.F., Opposite Kali Devi Temple, Mall Road, Patiala through its Sales Manager/Prop.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.P.S.Walia,Advocate,counsel for complainant.
Sh.Gitesh Sharma,DM, for the opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Rajesh Kumar has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.).The brief facts of the complainant are as under:-
2. That the manufacturers, in order to promote the sale of the products, manufactured under the brand names, offered discount of 20% & 30% on M.R.P. on 7.7.2016 on certain items and he purchased 19 items on discount offered by the OP. The OP charged extra amount on account of VAT on these items,despite the fact that M.R.P. includes all the taxes including VAT. In this way the OP charged extra amount on the discounted items. He brought the matter to the notice of the OP who told that VAT is extra as per T&C and has been charged as per directions and instructions given by the manufacturers as well as by the marketers.Thus there is not only deficiency in service on the part of the OP but it also indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the OP to refund the excess amount charged from him and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
3. On notice, the OP appeared and filed the written version. It is stated that the complainant has not deliberately provided the necessary and vital information to this Forum.That in the advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that Vat will be charged extra on the discounted price. There is no deficiency of service on its part and it did not indulge in unfair trade practice.After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
4. In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith document Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.
The representative of the OP tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Ajay Pal Singh and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant, representative of the OP and also gone through the record of the case,carefully.
6. Ex.C1 is the copy of the retail invoice vide which the complainant purchased the items and made the payment to the OP. In the said bill the M.R.P. as well as discounted price of the purchased items is mentioned. The case of the complainant is that he was charged extra VAT @6.05% for the items he purchased , after giving discount of 30%. The stand of the OP is that VAT is rightly charged on the sale of the items in question. It may be stated that there is nothing on the record to show that VAT charged from the customers was deposited with the respective taxation authorities. Furthermore, the OP has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, convincing and reliable evidence in the shape of any rules/instructions authorizing it to levy/charge the amount of VAT in question. Facing with this situation, we are of the view that by charging vat on the discounted amount, the O.P. is not only deficient in service but has also indulged in to unfair trade practice. Our view is supported by the judgment titled as M/s Aeroclub (woodland) Versus Rakesh Sharma, Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016, decided on 04 Jan 2017 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, wherein it has already held that “ In our opinion, therefore, the defence of the Petitioners that they had charged VAT as per law is of no avail in so far as the issue at hand, viz. misleading advertisement, resulting in unfair trade practice, is concerned. We are in complete agreement with the Fora below that any discount failing short of “Flat 40% on the MRP would amount to unfair trade practice, as defined in the Act”. Thus the OP is not only liable to refund the amount charged extra on account of Vat, from the complainant but is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.Ps. in the following manner:
- To refund the amount charged extra on account of Vat on the items mentioned in the bill, Ex.C1.
- To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.5,000/-towards costs of litigation
The O.P is further directed to comply the order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:26.4.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
