DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1012 of 2017
Date of institution: 24.11.2017 Date of decision : 14.12.2018
Sukhwinder Singh Manchanda son of Gurdip Singh Manchanda, resident of House No.92, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.
…….Complainant
Versus
Broadway Retail Services, Ground Floor, Cosmo Plaza, Zirakpur, District Mohali through its authorised person.
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Ms. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Manish Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
OP Ex-parte.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant purchased two products from OP on 25.06.2017 after paying Rs.2099/-. Those products were having MRP of Rs.1,799/- each inclusive of all taxes. After discount of 45%, price of the product came to Rs.1978.90 N.P. inclusive of all taxes, but VAT amount of Rs.120/- @ 6.05% charged on the discounted price, which is alleged to be unfair trade practice resulting in mental, physical and financial sufferings of complainant. So complaint filed for direction to OP to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.120/- with interest @ 18% per annum. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.35,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- more claimed.
2. OP is exparte in this case.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. Contents of complaint as well as of affidavit and invoice Ex.C-1 establishes that two products were purchased by complainant after visiting OP at Zirakpur (District Mohali) on 25.06.2017 by paying price of Rs.2099/- including VAT amount of Rs.120/- @ 6.05%. MRP of the purchased product mentioned as Rs.1799/- each (inclusive of all taxes) on the tags, which are produced on record as Ex.C-2. It is not disputed that discount of 45% was granted on the MRP and it is on the discounted price that VAT @ 6.05% = Rs.120/- has been charged. That practice of charging VAT on the discounted price certainly is against the 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. Ratio of both these cases lays that when MRP is inclusive of all taxes, then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately, meaning thereby that on discounted price no VAT can be charged. In the case before us, VAT has been charged on the discounted price, which is not permissible as per law laid down in the above cases and as such certainly OP adopted unfair trade practice in doing so.
6. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP to refund excess charged amount of Rs.120/- with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 25.06.2017 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 of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Announced
December 14, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
