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

                                     Consumer Complaint No. 475 of 2016                                    Date of institution:  11.08.2016                                       Date of decision   :  07.09.2017

Sulabh Mahajan, resident of 103, GH-8, Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                     ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

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 Sections 12 of

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Sukaam Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Sapan Sharma, Store Manager of the OP.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Sulabh Mahajan 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 19.07.2016 to purchase clothes. The OP in order to promote sale had offered 50% discount on MRP of the products. The complainant purchased one T-shirt,  MRP of which was Rs.899/-. However, while issuing the retail invoice/receipt dated 19.07.2016, the OP charged Rs.27.19 as VAT on the MRP of the product purchased by the complainant.  The complainant raised protest against the VAT charges but the officials of the OP refused to entertain the complainant and did not show any notification or regulation favoring such practice of charging extra VAT on the discounted price.  The complainant then refused to purchase the  T-shirt but the officials of the OP told that as the invoice has been generated and cannot be canceled, thus left with no other option the complainant had to pay the billed amount.  The complainant has alleged that the charging VAT on the MRP is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.    Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund him the extra amount of VAT charged to the tune of Rs.27.19 with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment i.e. 19.07.2016;  to pay him Rs.30,000/- compensation and Rs.15,000/-  as litigation costs.

3.             The complaint has been contested by the OP by filing reply by alleging that the complaint is gross abuse of process of law and the complaint is an afterthought.  It was clearly mentioned in the advertisement that discount of 50% was offered with condition which was clearly mentioned that VAT will be charged extra. The OP has denied that the complainant has ever asked for any notification or regulation from the OPs regarding charging of VAT extra.  The complainant had brought the products at discounted price and as per rules and provisions of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the OP has charged VAT on the discounted price.  Justifying charging of VAT on the discounted price as legal, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.

 4.            In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of tag Ex.C-1, bill Ex.C-2 and decision of Ld. DCDRF, Ut Chandigarh upheld by the Hon’ble State Commission as Mark-A. In rebuttal, Sapan Sharma  Store Manager of the OP tendered his affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and copy of authority letter Ex.OP-1.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the price tag Ex.C-1 shows that the price of the T-shirt purchased by the complainant was inclusive of all taxes. However, the OP at the time of issuance of invoice Ex.C-2 again charged VAT to the tune of Rs.27.19 on the discounted price and this act on the part of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  

6.             On the other hand the authorised representative of the OP has argued that the OP has clearly mentioned in the advertisement displayed at the store and the counter that VAT will be charged extra on the discounted price.  Thus, the authorised representative has argued that the VAT on the discounted price has been charged legally and has sought dismissal of the complaint.

7.             After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and authorised representative of the OP and going through the pleadings, evidence and the written arguments of the OP, it is established from the material placed on record i.e. tag Ex. C- 1 that the MRP of the T-shirt purchased by the complainant was inclusive of all taxes. However, the OP again charged VAT to the tune of Rs.27.19 while issuing invoice Ex.C-2.   The contention of the authorised representative of the OP that it was clearly mentioned in the advertisement offering discount that the VAT will be charged extra is without any supportive evidence, hence cannot be accepted. The OP has failed to prove by leading any cogent evidence that it was justified in charging VAT on the discounted price. We are fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in M/s. Aero Club (Woodland) Vs. Rakesh Sharma, Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 wherein it has been held that charging of VAT on the discounted price is unfair trade practice.

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.27.19 (Rs. Twenty seven and paisa nineteen only) i.e. excess charges of VAT 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: 07.09.2017

                                                (A.P.S.Rajput)

 President

                      (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member