DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.519 of 2017
Date of institution: 19.07.2017 Date of decision : 08.03.2018
Rahul Choudhary aged about 30 years son of Shri Satish Choudhary, resident of 3079-A, Sector 39-D, Chandigarh.
…….Complainant
Vs
Broad Way Retail Services (Ground Floor Cosmo Plaza-Zirakpur).
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Deepak Negi, counsel for complainant.
OP Ex-parte.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant, after knowing about the discount offer of OP, visited premises of OP on 08.06.2017 for purchase of kurta, on which MRP of Rs.1,499/- (inclusive of all taxes) was mentioned. Retail invoice bill for amount of Rs.1,112/- inclusive of Rs.63/- as VAT @ 6.05% was issued, despite the fact that this VAT cannot have been charged on the discounted price. Even the legal notice dated 09.06.2017 served by complainant on OP did not entail any result. That practice of charging extra VAT on the discounted MRP alleged to be unfair trade practice and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of amount of Rs.63/-. with interest alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.25,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.12,000/-.
2. OP is ex-parte in this case.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-4 and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Written arguments submitted. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. Contents of complaint as well as of affidavit and invoice Ex.C-1 establishes that kurta purchased by complainant after visiting OP on 08.06.2017 by paying price of Rs.1,112/- including VAT amount of Rs.63/-. MRP of the purchased product mentioned as Rs.1,499/- (inclusive of all taxes) on the tag, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.C-2. It is not disputed that discount was granted on the MRP and it is on the discounted price that VAT of Rs.63/-. has been charged. Practice of charging VAT on the discounted price has been held to be unfair trade practice as per law laid down 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. In view of this legal position, certainly OP adopted unfair trade practice by charging VAT on the discounted price, which caused mental harassment and agony to complainant, due to which he is entitled for refund of excess charged amount alongwith compensation for mental harassment and agony and also to litigation expenses.
6. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP to refund excess charged amount of Rs.63/- with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 08.06.2017 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
March 08, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
