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

Consumer Complaint No.300 of 2017

                                                     Date of institution:  20.04.2017                                                     Date of decision   :  07.06.2018

Mandeep Singh Saini son of Late Shri Manmohan Singh Saini, resident of House No.1736, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh.

…….Complainant

Vs

Aero Club (Woodland Store), SCO No.2209, Khata No.59/68, Khasra No.647, VPO Bishangarh Zirakpur through its Proprietor/Manager/ Authorised Signatory.

                                                                    ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Present:     Ms. Vandana, counsel for complainant.

                Shri Khem Narain, Store Manager on behalf of OP.

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

Order

               Complainant purchased many products for amount of Rs.4,375/- through invoice dated 11.03.2017 after availing 60% discount on the said products having MRP of  Rs.9,785/- inclusive of all taxes. Though after discount of 60% payable amount was Rs.3914/-. but VAT amount of Rs.460.85 N.P. charged from complainant. That practice of charging Rs.460.85 N.P.  alleged to be unfair trade practice and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of Rs.460.85 N.P. alongwith compensation of mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2.             In reply filed by OP, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint filed without any cause of action just for harassing OP for extracting money from him. Charging of VAT is in accordance with law and as such allegation of adopting unfair trade practice denied.  Price was charged as per discount scheme disclosed to complainant. Allegations of charging VAT erroneously are alleged to be without basis. As and when purchaser avails the scheme, then he goes out of the declaration of MRP because the later serves only the basis for calculation of sale consideration. Complainant failed to understand the concept of MRP and availed discount. Rates inclusive of all taxes include payment of VAT on the sale price. As per law, customer to pay MRP, but for payment of VAT, the sale consideration gets reduced by the amount of payable taxes.
As on the discount offer a condition was put that VAT will be charged extra and as such amount of charged VAT is alleged to be as per trade practice and law. Besides, there is no provision of prepaid tax under VAT scheme. Sale bill itself enumerates allowing of rebate and then charging VAT as per scheme.  It is claimed that provision of Standard Weight & Measurement Act has been repealed due to which declaration of MRP does not hold good now. If the complainant not satisfied with the act of charging VAT, then he should approach VAT department for clarification. It is claimed that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaint. However, purchase of product in question vide invoice admitted by claiming that VAT of Rs.460.85 N.P. was charged in legal manner.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith document Ex.C-1 and thereafter his counsel closed evidence. On the other hand Shri Khem Narain, representative of OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and thereafter closed evidence. 

4.             Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments of counsel for complainant and representative of OP heard and records gone through.

5.             Even though complainant has not produced tag showing MRP of Rs.9,785/- inclusive of all taxes, but despite that the version given by him in complaint as well as through affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 has not been specifically refuted by OP either in reply or in the submitted affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of its representative. It is well settled that as and when plea specifically taken and the same not denied, then same to be taken as accepted/acknowledged by adversary. It is admitted in the written reply as well as in the affidavit Ex.OP-1/1   that the product in question was having MRP, on which discount @ 60% was offered. In view of non specific denial of MRP inclusive of all taxes, it has to be held that MRP of the products in question was inclusive of all taxes. Despite that VAT of amount of Rs.460.85 N.P. has been charged on the discounted price, is a fact borne from copy of invoice Ex.C-1 dated 11.03.2017 produced on record.  Practice of charging extra VAT on the discounted price certainly is unfair trade practice because the same has been deprecated 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.  Ratio of both these cases fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

6.             Though copy of bill No.57 of 2006 has been produced, but that bill has not been passed by Parliament of India and nor the same received assent of His Excellency Hon’ble President of India. So reliance on 2 (f)  Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Bill 2006 cannot be placed.

7.             Representative of OP Shri Khem Narain has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 alongwith Annexure-A which is copy of the advertisement on display board or in the newspapers for claiming that customers made aware that on the discount offer of 60% availed by them, VAT will be charged extra. That mention of Annexure-A is made in affidavit Ex.OP-1/1, but that Annexure-A actually has not at all been produced by OP. So OP unable to establish that circulation of the discount offer scheme actually was made for divulging customers of charging VAT extra on the discounted price. As the notification of charging extra VAT on the discounted price not given to the complainant or to the customers and as such certainly in view of above said legal position, act of charging VAT extra on the discounted price is unfair trade practice, more so when MRP is inclusive of all taxes.

8.             Even if VAT to be charged from the buyer is to be deposited in the Govt. treasury, despite that OP itself disclosed as if MRP is inclusive of all taxes and as such duty of paying VAT on the discounted price remains of OP because complainant after availing discount offer on product having MRP inclusive of all taxes not supposed to pay VAT, more so when notification of charging extra VAT on the discounted price not circulated or displayed on any conspicuous part of the outlet, from where complainant purchased the product in question. Provisions of VAT stand on different footings than that of beneficial provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Assessment of turnover of a trader for the purpose of sale tax to be done under the taxation provisions for collecting revenue for the State and as such in the garb of these provisions, benefit of provisions of Consumer Protection Act cannot be denied to the consumers. So submission advanced by representative of OP has no force that liability of paying VAT on the discounted price is of the complainant. As due to charging of extra VAT by OP from complainant, latter suffered mental agony and harassment and was dragged to litigation, so he is entitled for compensation for mental agony and harassment and to litigation expenses, but of reasonable amount. Complainant had to bear expenses on typing charges, and even paid requisite fee for filing this complaint and he could have filed the complaint even without engaging counsel, so it is appropriate to allow Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses by keeping in view nature of deficiency in question.  As complainant has been allowed interest @ 6% per annum on the excess charged amount with effect from the date of payment till realisation and as such he is adequately compensated qua sustained financial loss. Though counsel for complainant prays for granting compensation for mental agony and harassment of more than Rs.5,000/-, but said prayer must not be allowed, otherwise the complainant will get undue benefit for the lapse of OP in this case. If a person shells out extra amount than that of the requisite payable one, then magnitude of mental agony and harassment cannot be expected to be much more than that of the mental agony and harassment suffered by a consumer, who is divested of hefty amount payable to builder or project developer. So quantum of compensation for mental agony and harassment restricted to Rs.2,000/-.

9.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to OP to refund excess charged amount of Rs.460.85 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 11.03.2017 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

June 07, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                       (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member