DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 129 of 18.4.2017
Decided on: 2.8.2017
Sonia Sharma W/o Sh.Deepak Sharma R/o H.No.14-A, Ghuman Colony, Sant Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
AERO CLUB ( WOODLAND STORE ), Opposite Kaintal Petrol Pump, Bhupindra Road, Patiala through its Sales Manager/Prop.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.P.S.Walia,Adv.counsel for complainant
Sh.Karan Preet Singh,
Auth. representative of the opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Smt.Sonia Sharma,complainant 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:-
- To refund the excess amount, charged on account of VAT;
ii. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony
and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses and
To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the OP in order to promote the sale of its products manufactured under the brand name of “Woodland”, offered discount @ 40% on M.R.P. of the products, on 3.2.2016. Influenced from the offer, the complainant purchased LDS Trousher of the said vide retail invoice dated 3.2.2016 from the OP. The M.R.P. of the three items was Rs.2395/-, inclusive of all taxes as was fully described on the retail invoice, meaning thereby the seller could not charge any tax whatsoever over and above the M.R.P.The gross bill after discount came to Rs.1447/- but the OP charged Rs.1534/- after adding Rs.66.94/- on account of VAT . He brought the matter into the notice of OP who told that VAT is extra as per T&C and was charged as per directions and instructions given by the manufacturer. The charging of excess amount on account of VAT is not only illegal but also amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The act and conduct of the OP also caused mental agony and physical harassment to him.
3. On being put to notice, the OP appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objection that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant bought LDS Trouser of “Woodland” brand as per retail invoice/cash memo No.HP31CSH151604542 dated 3.2.2016.That the complainant well understood the scheme and thereafter purchased the item at the discount offered onMR.P.There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith document Ex.C1and closed the evidence.
The representative of the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his sworn affidavit and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant, representative of the OP and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. From the invoice dated 3.2.2016, Ex.C1,which was duly issued by the OP for the purchase of the aforesaid item, it is evident that the M.R.P. of the item was Rs.2395/-. After giving discount the payable amount came to Rs.1437/-. But the OP after adding Rs.66.94 as Vat tax amount, had raised the bill for a sum of Rs.1534/. It may be stated that no extra amount could be charged over and above the M.R.P. printed on the goods, even the same has been sold on discount because under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014 M.R.P. has already been included all taxes levied on the goods. Thus, charging of extra amount on account of Vat, on the discounted price , is certainly against the trade practice and the O.P is liable to refund the same to the complainant. Not only this, it is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith 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 failing 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:
- To refund Rs.220.99 rounded off Rs.66.94/- rounded of Rs.67/- charged from the complainant on account of Vat.
- To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
- 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 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: 2.8.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
