DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 334 of 26.8.2016
Decided on: 5.4.2017
Varinderjeet Kaur w/o Sh.Sukhinder Singh Sidhu R/o # 102, New Officers Colony, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Biba Apparels Pvt .Ltd. Shop No.GF-14A, Wedding Mall( OMAXE), Near Green Hotel
, 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,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Amrik Singh, Area Manager, for opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Smt.Varinderjeet Kaur 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.) . The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. That the manufacturers, in order to promote the sale of its products manufactured under the brand BIBA, offered 20% discount on M.R.P. on 29.7.2016. Persuaded by the offer, the complainant purchased one ladies Top of the brand of BIBA , on the same day vide retail invoice No.2020. The M.R.P. of the said item was Rs.2599/-(inclusive of all taxes). The gross bill amount of the product after discount came Rs.2079.20, but the OP charged Rs.2204/-. The payment was made in cash. It came to the notice of the complainant that the OP has charged Rs.125.79 extra as VAT @ 6.05 on sale price after discount. She brought the matter into the notice of the OP but its Manager/Prop. informed that the Vat is charged as per directions and instructions given by the manufacturer as well as by the marketers. It is stated that M.R.P. is always inclusive of all taxes and no extra tax could be charged. Thus, the OP has charged tax on tax which is not only illegal but also an unfair trade practice on its part. Due to this act of the O.P. she suffered from mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the O.P. to refund the excess amount charged from her and also to pay compensation, litigation expenses and damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
3. On being put to notice, the O.P. appeared and filed its written version taking preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer and that the complaint is not maintainable as the dispute raised in the present complaint is outside the scope of the Act. On merits, it is stated that the product which was offered for sale on 20% discount, was lower than MRP, with a specific condition that VAT would be charged extra, which the complainant was agreed upon. The complainant had purchased the product without resistance. It is stated that the product which was sold at a net discount offer, VAT was not included on the price and thus an additional VAT was charged above the discounted price. She also understood and read the content of applicability of additional Vat as mentioned on signage board displayed at billing counter. It is stated that it had not kept the amount of Vat, charged on discounted product but has deposited the same with the concerned authorities. No demand or objection was raised by the complainant at the time of purchase .There is no unfair trade practice on its part, nd the complaint is liable to be dismissed .
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence, Ex.CA, sworn affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 & C2 and closed the evidence.
Sh.Amrik Gill, Manager of the OP tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant, Manager of the OP and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- From the retail invoice dated 29.7. 2016, Ex.C1, it is evident that the complainant purchased item No.100984 having product description INDIGOF11498, Color IND, Size 38 from the OP. The Original price of the product was mentioned as Rs.2599/-. The product was sold on discount of 20% . In the column meant for Excl.Vat 6.05% was written. The unit price of the product was shown as Rs.2204.99. Ex.C2 is the tag of the concerned item wherein, the MRP of the product has been mentioned as Rs.2599/- (Inclusive of All Taxes). It may be stated that the amount of the item after discount came to Rs.2079.20 but the OP after adding Rs.125.79, extra on account of vat ,has charged Rs.2204/- from the complainant as is evident from the retail invoice,Ex.C1. Facing with this situation, we are of the view that by charging vat on the discounted amount, the O.P. is not only deficient in service but has also indulged in to unfair trade practice and is thus liable to refund the extra amount charged from 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.Ps. in the following manner:
- To refund the wrongly charged VAT of Rs.125.79 to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.3,000/-towards costs of litigation
The O.P is further directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay an interest @9% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub paras (i) and (ii) above, from the date of institution of this complaint, till payment is made. 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 5.4.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
