View 132 Cases Against Woodland
Vishal Gupta filed a consumer case on 15 Sep 2017 against Aero Club authorized Sale Store of Woodland in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/17/28 and the judgment uploaded on 18 Sep 2017.
BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 28 of 10.05.2017
Date of decision : 15.09.2017
Vishal Gupta son of Sh. Sham Lal Gupta, resident of House No.79, Ranjit Avenue Bela Chowk, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar
......Complainant
Versus
Aero Club authorized Sale Store of Woodland, SCF 39, Bela Chowk, Rupnagar, through its Store Manager. ....Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh.Sumit Pasricha, Advocate, counsel for complainant
Sh. Chander Mohan, Store Manager, Woodland Aero Club, authorized representative for O.P.
ORDER
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Vishal Gupta Dilbagh Singh through his counsel has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’) praying for the following reliefs:-
i) To refund the extra amount of Rs.797.52/- charged from him by the O.P. by saying Vat on discount price.
ii) To pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, physical harassment, unfair trade practice suffered by him.
iii) To pay Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation
iv) Any other order or relief as the Hon'ble Forum may deems fit and proper, in the interest of justice.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that the O.P. is the authorized sale store of Woodland. It had displayed, as well as advertized regarding the sale on the woodland products on the flat discount. Complainant visited the store on 2.1.2017 and purchased some woodland products i.e. footwear and readymade garments. The O.P. issued a bill No.N171CSH161701502, by mentioning the total MRP of all the items as Rs.9285/- and after giving a discount of Rs.4131/- and by adding Rs.736.92/- as VAT @ 14.30% had raised the bill for a sum of Rs.5900.98/-. Similarly, the O.P. has also issued a second bill No. N171CSH161701503 by mentioning MRP of the item as Rs.2000/- and after giving discount of Rs.1000/- and by charging an amount of Rs.60.50/- as VAT @ 6.05% had raised the bill for a sum of Rs.1061.50/-. The complainant paid both the bills through debit card. Thereafter, he came to know that the O.P. could not charge vat on the discounted price. Accordingly, he approached the O.P. and requested to refund the said amount charged from him on account of VAT, but it refused to refund the same. Hence, this complaint.
3. On being put to the notice, the O.P. has filed written version stating therein that the present complainant is not maintainable because goods were sold by it for the price as per the discount scheme. The allegation of the complainant that it had illegally charged VAT twice from him is without any basis. The complainant has failed to understand the concept of MRP and discount offer. The moment discount is offered on condition like 60% discount with condition of VAT extra means, the price is determined by giving discount on MRP indicated, on the products which serves as the base to know the sale price and it is further subject to extra charge of VAT. The discount scheme is for clearance of stock, whereas VAT has to be paid on the sales as condition of sales, there is no provision of pre paid taxes where the party claims that tax has been paid already. The O.P. has charged the VAT from the complainant as per the scheme and if the complainant was dissatisfied he could have approach VAT department for clarification Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.
4. On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. The authorized representative for O.P. has tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and authorized representative for O.P and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
6. The question which falls for consideration is that as to whether the O.P. can charge VAT on the goods/items sold on discount. Our answer is in negative because under section section 2 (d) of Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of cost of Production and “Maximum” Retail Price” printed on the goods, a mandatory labeling requirement, at the relevant time, for pre-packaged goods, means “such price at which the consumer goods shall be sold in retail and such price shall include all taxes levied on the goods”. From the Invoices, Ex.C1 & Ex.C3, it is evident that the O.P. charged vat on the items/goods purchased by the complainant on discount. Since, the O.P. has charged Vat on the discounted price of the goods from the complainant in violation of section 2(d) of Consumer Goods Act, 2014. Therefore, it is not only committed deficiency in service but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The O.P. is thus, liable to refund the amount charged on account of vat and also liable to compensate the complainant for causing him mental agony and physical harassment. It is also liable to pay litigation expenses.
In the case of M/s Aero Club (Woodland) Vs. Rakesh Sharma, Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016, decided on 4.1.2017, the National Commission, New Delhi, in para No. 14 of the order has 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 falling short of “Flat 40% on the MRP would amount to unfair trade practice, as defined in the Act”.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.P. in the following manner:-
1. To refund Rs. 797.52, rounded off Rs.800/- charged on account of Vat, to the complainant
2. To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant
3. To pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation
The O.P. is further directed to comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order .
8. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (NEENA SANDHU)
Dated .15.09.2017 PRESIDENT
(SHAVINDER KAUR)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.