DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 67 of 28.2.2017
Decided on: 31.5.2017
Simranjit Singh S/o Sh.Paramjit Singh, R/o # 60,Century Enclave, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Chawla Fashions, Shop No.5, Bhupindra Road, Near Indusland Bank, Patiala through its Prop./Sales Manager.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Paramjit Singh Walia, Advocate,
counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Simranjit Singh,complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.).The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. That the OP in order to promote the sale of its products manufactured under the brand name of “Gini & Jony” offered 30% & 50% discount on M.R.P. of the products. Persuaded from the offer, the complainant purchased one jeggings and two jeans from OP, vide retail invoice No.DS/1674 dated 27.12.2016. The M.R.P. of the Jeggings was Rs.1299/- and that of Jeans was Rs.1499/-, which was inclusive of all taxes. The gross bill amount of the said item after discount came to Rs.2448.30 but the OP charged Rs.2596/- after having added Rs.134.65 as VAT. He brought the matter into the notice of OP who told that VAT is extra as per T&C and was charged as per directions and instructions given by the manufacturer. It is averred that the seller cannot charge any tax whatsoever on the M.R.P. of the product. The charging of excess amount on account of VAT is not only illegal but also amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the OP to refund the excess amount charged on account of VAT and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses.
3. On being put to notice, OP failed to come present despite service and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. From Ex.C1, it is evidence that the complainant made the purchase from the OP. In the bill, the M.R.P of the items is mentioned as Rs.1299/-, Rs.1499/-& Rs.1499/-.The discount amount is mentioned as Rs.1848.70/-. In this way, the payable amount came to Rs.2448.30. But the OP after adding Rs.134.65, on account of VAT, charged an amount of Rs.2596/- from the complainant. From the price tags, Exs.C2,C3 & C3, it is also evident that the maximum retail price, (hereinafter referred to be as M.R.P.) of the purchased items in question, was Rs.1499/-, Rs.1499 and Rs.1299/-.In the said tag , it is specifically mentioned that M.R.P. is inclusive of all taxes. . The averment of the complainant, which is duly supported by his affidavit, has gone un-rebutted, as the O.P instead of contesting the case has preferred not to appear before this Forum . Facing with this situation, we are of the view that by charging vat on the discounted amount, the O.P. is not only deficient in service but has also indulged in to unfair trade practice and is thus liable to refund the extra amount charged from the complainant. Not only this, it is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses. In the case titled as M/s Aeroclub (woodland) Versus Rakesh Sharma, Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016, decided on 04 Jan 2017, the Hon’ble National Commission has already held that “In our opinion, therefore, the defence of the Petitioners that they had charged VAT as per law is of no avail in so far as the issue at hand, viz. misleading advertisement, resulting in unfair trade practice, is concerned. We are in complete agreement with the Fora below that any discount falling short of “Flat 40% on the MRP would amount to unfair trade practice, as defined in the Act”.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.P. in the following manner:
- To refund to the complainant Rs.134.65, charged on account of Vat.
- To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation, for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.5,000/-towards costs of litigation
The O.P. is further directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:31.5.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
