DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.200  of 30.5.2017

                                      Decided on:           18.10.2017

Paramjit Singh Walia s/o Sh.Raghbir Singh, R/o # 19A-1, Ranbir Marg, Model Town, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

AERO CLUB (WOOD LAND), Shop No. G.F. 15, Omax Mall, Opposite Kali Mandir, Patiala through its Prop./Sales Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member          

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.Paramjit Singh Walia, complainant in person..

                                       Sh.Karan Preet Singh, Authorized representative

                                          of the opposite party.

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Complainant Paramjit Singh Walia 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.).

2. WOOD LAND” offered discount ranging from 40% to 60%  on M.R.P. Persuaded from the said offer, he purchased one pair of sandal from the OP vide retail invoice TIN No.03241002416 dated 1.3.2017.The MRP of the said item was Rs.2395/- (inclusive of all taxes).The gross bill amount of the said item after discount came to Rs.1000/- .However, the OP charged Rs.1153/- after having added Rs.143/-  as VAT. It is stated that the OP has charged excess price than the fixed price as the M.R.P. of the product included all the taxes and has thus charged tax on tax which is not only illegal but also an unfair trade practice on its part. He brought the matter into the notice of the OP but he told that Vat is extra as per T&C and  was charged as per directions and instructions given by the manufacturer. The act and conduct of the OP caused mental agony and physical harassment to him.Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the Op to refund the amount charged in excess on account . The OP may also be burdened with compensatory cost and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-
3.  
4.  

The authorized representative of the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his sworn affidavit and closed the evidence.

6.       From the invoice, Ex.C1,  it is  evident that the OP mentioned the M.R.P. of the said item as Rs.2395/- .After giving discount of Rs.1395/-, the payable  amount has  come to Rs.1000/-. But the OP after having added Rs.143/- as Vat  has raised the bill for an amount of  Rs.1153/-.(Rs.1000+143+10) Rs.10/- has been added as donation by the complainant to WWF). It may be stated that as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014,  no  extra amount over and above the M.R.P., printed on the goods could be charged, even the same has been sold on discount, as M.R.P. has already been included  all taxes levied on the goods. Since the OP has charged Vat on the discounted price of the product, from the complainant,  in violation of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014, therefore, it   has not only committed deficiency in service but also indulged in to  unfair trade practice. The OP is thus liable to refund the amount charged on account of Vat and also  liable to  compensate the complainant for causing  mental agony and physical harassment . It is also liable to pay litigation expenses. In the case titled as M/s Aeroclub (woodland) Versus Rakesh Sharma, Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016,  decided on 04 Jan 2017, the Hon’ble National Commission 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 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.143/- 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.5,000/-towards costs of litigation

The O.P. is further directed to  comply the order within a period of 30 days from the date of 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: 18.10.2017

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER