DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 68 of 28.2.2017
Decided on: 31.5.2017
Paramjit Singh Walia s/o Sh.Raghbir Singh, R/o # 19A-1, Ranbir Marg, Model Town, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Chawla Fashion, U.S.POLO , 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, complainant in person.
Opposite party ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Paramjit Singh Walia, Advocate, 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 “U.S.POLO” offered 40% discount on M.R.P. of the product. Persuaded from the offer, the complainant purchased “Mens Jkt” from OP vide cash memo No.SLF65-3016 dated 26.1.2017. The M.R.P. of the said item was Rs.7499/-( inclusive of all taxes). The gross bill amount of the said item after discount came to Rs.4499/- but the OP charged from the complainant Rs.4772- after having added Rs.272.21/- 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 C3 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. Ex.C1, is the bill of the jacket, issued by the OP. In the bill, the M.R.P of the product is mentioned as Rs.7499/-.The discount amount is mentioned as Rs.2999/-. In this way, the payable amount comes to Rs.4500/-. But the OP after adding Rs.272.21 on account of VAT, charged from the complainant, an amount of Rs.4742/- for the said product. From the price tag, Ex.C2, it is also evident that the maximum retail price, (hereinafter referred to be as M.R.P.) of the jacket in question, was Rs.7499/-.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.272.21, 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
