DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                      Consumer Complaint No.284 of 2016                                                  Date of institution: 18.05.2016                                                  Date of decision   :  09.03.2017

Vipul Kumar son of Suresh Chand Mittal, resident of House No.2025, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.

                                     ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Central (A Division of FLFL), CT Mohali – North Country Mall, North Country Mall, NH-21, Mohali, Kharar Road, Mohali 160118 through its Manager.

                                                               ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Sections 12 & 13

of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Ms. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Rajat Nakra, counsel for the complainant.

                OP Ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Vipul Kumar has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The OP is running a business of selling clothes and accessories under the name and style of Central and is operating at North Country Mall, Mohali.  The OP in order to promote sale of its products offered discounts on the MRP of various products on 18.02.2016. The complainant purchased two pair of shoes from the OP which were priced at Rs.4999/- and Rs.2599/- respectively inclusive of all taxes, vide retail invoice dated 18.02.2016. The shoes were available at 30% and 50% discounts respectively but the OP charged an amount of Rs.5477/- from the complainant. The complainant raised the objection that the shoes should be available at Rs.4799/- after discount and not Rs.5477/- and the officials of the OP informed that 14.13% extra VAT is imposed on the discounted products. The complainant raised objection to this and told the employees that the cost of the shoes was inclusive of all taxes and VAT has already been added to the said cost and the complainant cannot be charged tax on tax.  However, the complainant was told that he had to pay the entire sum in order to buy the products otherwise he would not be allowed to buy the same.  Having no choice, the complainant purchased these shoes from the OP.  Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to furnish any such notification or regulation issued by the concerned taxation authorities for charging extra VAT on MRP during discount period; to stop such unfair trade practices; to refund him extra amount of VAT charged to the tune of Rs.678/-; to pay him Rs.50,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

3.             As per the tracking report retrieved from the site of India Post, the notice was delivered to it on 13.10.2016 but none appeared for it. Thus, the OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.11.2016.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of tags Ex.C-1 and bill Ex.C-2.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the tag Ex.C-1 shows that the prices of the shoes were inclusive of all taxes. However, the OP at the time of issuance of retail invoice again charged VAT @ 14.13% on the discounted price and this act on the part of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  

6.             After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence and the written as well as oral submissions, it is established from the material placed on record i.e. tag Ex.C-1 that the prices of the shoes were inclusive of all taxes. However, the OP again charged VAT @ 14.13% while issuing invoice.  In our view when MRP is inclusive of all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. Here we are fortified by the similar view taken by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No.3723 of 2011 titled as The Branch Manager M/s. Shirt Palace Branch Black Bird Showroom Vs. Chandru H.C. decided on 16.01.2014. A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015 decided on 01.09.2015 in case titled as Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and others.

An ample opportunity was given to the OP to appear in this Forum to contest the complaint but it chose not to appear which amounts to admission of the averments of the complaint and that the OP does not want to say anything in this regard.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the afore stated case law, we find that charging of VAT on the discounted price by the OP is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.   Hence we direct the OP to refund to the complainant Rs.678/- (Rs. Six hundred seventy eight only) i.e. excess charges of VAT and to pay him a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.

                The OP is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decision till actual payment.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 27.02.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 09.03.2017

                                              (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                          President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member