Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/967/2016

Rahul Deswal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aero Club, Chandigarh- DLF City Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Deep Goel

06 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/967/2016
Date of Institution	:	24/10/2016
Date of Decision	:	06/07/2017

 

Rahul Deswal s/o Zile Singh Deswal resident of House No.241, Sector 6, MDC, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Aero Club, Chandigarh – DLF City Centre, Shop No.19, Ground Floor, DLF City Centre, Chandigarh through its Manager.

……Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

 

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Harkamal Singh, Store Manager of OP.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the OP, in order to promote their products and increase sales, offered goods on discounted prices.  Lured by the commercials of the OP, the complainant visited the showroom of the OP and made purchases vide bill dated 8.7.2016 (Annexure C-1). When the complainant approached the billing counter, he was asked to pay Rs.6,630/- after levy of VAT of Rs.486.51. The complainant protested as the MRP includes all the taxes and the gross amount for the purchased items after discount was Rs.6,048.49 only, but, to no effect.  Left with no other option, the complainant paid the billed amount. Alleging that the aforesaid act amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.  
2.         The OP in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix of the case. However, it has been averred that the complainant has failed to understand the meaning of MRP where the OP undertake to bear the payment of VAT but the discounted scheme is for clearance where VAT has to be paid on the sales as condition of sales. It has been contended that the OP has not charged tax twice. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OP.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the representative of the OP.
6.         From a perusal of the record it becomes evident that the complainant did purchase some products having different MRPs. Further, it is evident from the invoice dated 8.7.2016 (Annexure C-1) that after giving discount on the said products, the total amount payable came to Rs.6,043.49 only, but, the OP illegally charged an amount of Rs.6,630/- from the complainant by adding Rs.485.51 as VAT. The OP has failed to substantiate its act either through some Govt. notification or case law. When MRP included all the taxes, charging of VAT on the discounted price would amount to indulging in unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
7.      The simple question for determination in the present case is whether MRP includes all taxes, including VAT, and whether, after discount, VAT can be charged or not? A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 1.9.2015 in case titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Versus Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others”, wherein it has been held that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. In another decision in Appeal No.61 of 2016, decided on 18.02.2016, in case titled as “Benetton India Private Limited Vs. Ravinderjit Singh”, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant (Benetton India Pvt. Limited) has held that if it is clearly mentioned as MRP inclusive of all taxes, charging of extra VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice. The ratio of above stated pronouncements is squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, the act of the OP in charging VAT on the discounted price clearly proves deficiency in service on its part.  As such, the OP is liable to refund the excess amount of VAT besides compensation for mental agony, physical pain and litigation expenses to the complainant.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  The OP is directed as under :-

(i)     To refund to the complainant Rs.485.51 (say Rs.486/-) being the amount of VAT wrongly charged from him;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.         This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/07/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member