DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.124 of 2017
Date of institution: 15.02.2017 Date of decision : 05.07.2018
Harpreet Singh Sandhu, aged 33 years son of Kulwant Singh Sandhu, resident of Kothi No.173, Phase-XI, Mohali.
…….Complainant
Versus
Cantabil Retail India Limited (Mohali-2), Shop No.83, Ground and First Floor, Phase-7, Mohali through its MD/Prop./ Partner/ Authorised Signatory/Manager.
……..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: Complainant in person.
OP Ex-parte.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant after visiting shop of OP on 15.01.2017 purchased 3 denim jeans on which discount @ 50% flat was offered. Complainant paid Rs.3,869/- including VAT @ 5% i.e. of Rs.220.73 N.P. vide receipt Nos.710090 and 710091. Name of complainant was mentioned as Sanjay in the said bills without asking the complainant. MRP of the said jeans was Rs.7297/- inclusive of all taxes. One jean having MRP of Rs.2,599/- was not comfortable for the complainant and as such he again visited OP on 17.01.2017 for exchange of said jean. Complainant in exchange got a jean on which MRP mentioned was of Rs.7,194/-. Rs.6,253/- including adjustment price of jean was paid vide bill/receipt Nos.710168 and 710169 dated 17.01.2017. After discount, value of the jeans purchased on 15.01.2017 was to come to Rs.3,649/-, but OP charged Rs.3,869/- inclusive of Rs.220.73 N.P. as VAT. However, price of the articles purchased on 17.01.2017 after discount was to come to Rs.7,194/- without adjustment, but OP charged Rs.7,553.50 N.P. inclusive of Rs.358.71 N.P. as VAT. It is claimed that OP has charged VAT @ 5% extra on the above said items and as such an amount of Rs.578/- has been charged extra. Charging of VAT on the discounted price alleged to be unfair trade practice and that is why this complaint for seeking reimbursement of Rs.578/- with interest @ 18% per annum alongwith compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.20,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-
2. In reply filed by OP, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint is filed by concealing material facts for abusing judicial process and that complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint. Moreover, it is claimed that as per rules and regulations of VAT Department, a company can charge VAT on the discounted price on items on which offer of discount is given. So OP has not done anything illegal by charging VAT on the discounted price. It is also claimed that complainant visited shop of OP and asked for discount, then salesman at the shop disclosed that discount can be given only at the rate mentioned in the advertisement and approved by the company. However, the complainant stated that he wants more discount. On refusal by salesman, the complainant got furious and threatened to see the employee of the OP in court. Complaint alleged to be filed for satisfying the personal grouse. Name of the customer is mentioned on the bill after asking and confirmation from him. It is denied that MRP of the jeans was inclusive of all taxes or that OP charged extra amount of Rs.578/- as detailed in the complaint. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and thereafter closed evidence. However, none appeared for OP on the subsequent dates and as such OP was proceeded against ex-parte.
4. Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. Complainant has produced on record four invoices/bills, which are Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 in two leaves each. After going through these bills, it is made out that VAT of amount of Rs.220.73 N.P. was charged on the purchases made by complainant on 15.01.2017 through invoice Ex.C-1, but tax/VAT of amount of Rs.358.71 N.P. was charged on the purchases made by complainant on 17.01.2017 through invoice Ex.C-2. Tags of the purchased products numbering 7 are produced on record as Ex.C-3. Perusal of these tags reveals that items purchased were having MRP inclusive of all taxes. MRP of these products mentioned as Rs.1499/-; Rs.1599/-; Rs.5499/-; Rs.699/-; Rs.1299/-; Rs.699/- and Rs.1499/- on these tags Ex.C-3. As MRP was inclusive of all taxes and as such after discount, certainly OP could not have charged VAT extra on the discounted price. 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 products having MRP inclusive of all taxes in this case certainly is unfair trade practice.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP to refund excess charged amount of Rs.578/- with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 17.01.2017 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
July 05, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
