DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.68 of 23.2.2018
Decided on: 3.8.2018
Rosha Walia S/o Late Sh.Joginder Singh, aged 57 years # 13, Vasant Vihar, Behind Hemkunt Petrol Pump, Sirhind Road, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Cantabil Italy International Clothing, Shop 10, Bhupindra Road, Patiala through its Prop./Sales Manager.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member
ARGUED BY
Sh.P.S.Walia,Adv. counsel for complainant.
Sh.Shekhar Kamal,Adv.counsel for the OP.
ORDER
SH. M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT
Sh.Rosha Walai, (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), has filed this complaint against Cantabil Italy International Clothing,(hereinafter referred to as the OP).
Briefly, the case of the complainant is that the OP in order to promote the sale of the products manufactured under the brand name of “Cantabil” offered 60% discount on M.R.P. on 5.2.2017. The complainant purchased one ladies T-shirt and one ladies jacket of “Cantabil” brandvide invoice/memo No.DADA-0004176 dated 5.2.2017. The M.R.P. of the ladies T-shirt was Rs.799/-(inclusive of all taxes) as printed on the price tag and that of ladies jacket was Rs.3699/-.The payment of net amount of Rs.1908/- was made in cash. It came to the notice of the complainant that OP charged VAT extra on the items purchased by him .The gross bill amount of the said items after 60% discount comes to Rs.1799.20/- while OP has charged Rs.108.86 as VAT extra, illegally on the sale price after discount .The complainant has been charged VAT since MRP included VAT. The OP has charged tax on tax which is not only illegal but it amounts to an unfair trade practice as given in Section 2(1)( c) (i) & (iv) of the C.P.Act. The complainant prayed for the refund of the amount charged extra on account of VAT and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment. Hence this complaint.
2.Upon notice, OP appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply. In the reply, preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the complaint is nothing but just an abuse of judicial process as the complainant has concealed material facts.It is alleged that the OP has charged extra tax amount but as per VAT department and its rules and regulations, “a company cannot charge VAT over and above MRP, but if a company offers any discount, then the company can charge VAT over such amount derived after discount”. Therefore, it is the VAT department which permits that the OP can charge tax over the discounted amount. Moreover all the advertisements and posters etc. of the OP company states that “VAT extra”. Therefore, the OP is not doing any act which is against law law.
On merits, it is stated that since no excess amount has been charged by the OP so no question of its refund arises.After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3.The parties were offered opportunity to produce their evidence.
4.The ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant,Ex.C1 to C3,tags,Ex.C4, billand closed the evidence.
5.Theld. counsel for the OP tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Basant Goyal, authorized signatory of the OP, Ex.OP1 copy of resolution and closed the evidence.
6.We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7.Parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.It is further submitted by the complainant that the bill, Ex.C4 was issued by the OPon 5.2.2017. It proves that the complainant purchased the aforesaid items from the OP. Admittedly the OP has charged the VAT. The tags Exs.C1 & C2 show the MRP is Rs.799/- and Rs.3699/-It is well settled that the MRP includes all the taxes etc. Even otherwise the OP has pleaded thatthe OP can charge VATin case of discount but no such rules and regulations/notification is brought on record. Therefore, the only conclusion is that the OP illegally has charged the amount under the garb of VAT, which amounts to unfair trade practice.
8.Now coming to the question regarding compensation. The complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Legal position regarding amount of compensation has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, National Commission and State Commission in number of authorities. In latest judgment titled as Chief Administrative Huda Chief Administrative Huda & Anr. Vs. Shakuntla Devi, pronounced by theHon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Paragraph No.12 of this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under:-
“12) the sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof of loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of opposite party. Once the said conditions are satisfied, the Consumer Forum would have to decide the quantum of compensation to which the consumer is entitled. There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury. There is a duty cast on the Consumer Forum to take into account all relevant factors for arriving at the compensation to be paid”.
9.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is allowed .OP is ordered topayRs.3000/- as cost & compensation to the complainant, within the period of two months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:3.8.2018
Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh Neelam Gupta M. P. Singh Pahwa
Member Member President
