DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.647 of 2018
Date of institution: 22.06.2018 Date of decision : 01.07.2019
Rajan Pahwa son of Surjit Pahwa, resident of House No.23, Ram Vihar, Baltana, Mohali, Punjab.
…….Complainant
Versus
Broadway Mega Outlet Store, Ground Floor, Cosmo Plaza Mall, Chandigarh Ambala Highway, Zirakpur, Punjab through its Manager or Authorised Representative.
……..Opposite Party No.1
Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd. 8th Floor Du Parc Trinity 17 MG Road, Bengaluru 560001 through its Manager or Authorised Representative.
……..Opposite Party No.2
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Jobanprince Singh proxy cl. for the complainant.
OP No.1 Ex-parte.
Complaint against OP No.2 not admitted.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant purchased one product on 23.06.2017 after paying Rs.1,781/-. That product was having MRP of Rs.2,399/- inclusive of all taxes. After discount of 30%, price of the product came to Rs.1679.30 N.P. (round off) inclusive of all taxes, but VAT amount of Rs.102/- @ 6.05% charged on the discounted price, which is alleged to be unfair trade practice resulting in mental and physical harassment of complainant. So complaint filed for direction to OP to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.102/- with interest @ 18% per annum. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- more claimed.
2. OP No.1 is exparte in this case.
3. The complainant submitted self attested documents and affidavit in support of her claim. As per latest instructions received from Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab there is no need to record evidence and as such after hearing arguments of counsel for the complainant and going through produced record, this complaint is decided.
4. Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. Perusal of tag Ex.C-2 establishes that MRP of the product is inclusive of all taxes, but perusal of invoice Ex.C-1 establishes that after offering discount of 30%, VAT @ 6.05% of amount of Rs.102/- charged for claiming total amount of Rs.1,781/-. Practice of charging VAT on the discounted price having MRP inclusive of all taxes 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. So practice of charging VAT on the discounted price of the product having MRP inclusive of all taxes in this case certainly is unfair trade practice.
6 As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed against OP No.1 only with direction to OP No.1 to refund excess charged amount of Rs.102/- with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 23.06.2017 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 No.1. 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
July 01, 2019
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
