DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 128 of 18.4.2017
Decided on: 26.7.2017
Smiranjit Singh S/o Paramjit Singh Walia, R/o # 60, Century Enclave, 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.P.S.Walia,Adv.counsel for complainant.
Sh.DalveerRana,Store, Manager of the opposite party.
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 Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To refund the excess amount, charged on account of VAT;
ii. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony
and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the OP in order to promote the sale of its products manufactured under the brand name of “Gini & Jony”, offered discount @ 20% to 50% on M.R.P. of the products, on 27.12.2016. Influenced from the offer, the complainant purchased three items i.e. one pair of jeans @ 50% discount on the M.R.P. of 1499/-, one heavy winter jacket having 20% discount on the M.R.P. of Rs.2599/- and one pair of trouser having 30% discount on the M.R.P. of Rs.1699/-, vide retail invoice No.DS/1673 dated 27.12.2016 from the OP. The M.R.P. of the three items was inclusive of all taxes as was clearly mentioned on the tags attached with the products i.e. the seller could not charge any tax whatsoever over and above the M.R.P. The payment of the bill issued by the OP was made through credit card. The gross bill amount of the aforesaid items after discount came to Rs.4040/- but the OP after having added Rs.220.99 on account of VAT, charged Rs.4261/-from him. 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. The charging of excess amount on account of VAT is not only illegal but also amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The act and conduct of the OP also caused mental agony and physical harassment to him.
3. On being put to notice, the OP appeared and filed its reply in the shape of affidavit of Sh.Dalveer Singh, authorized representative of the OP .It is stated that it was specifically indicated that the discounted price is exclusive of VAT. The same was accordingly charged over and above the discounted sale price and paid to the Govt.After denying all other averments made in the complaint it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
The representative of the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his sworn affidavit and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant, representative of the OP and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. From the invoice dated 27.12.2016, Ex.C1,which was duly issued by the OP for the purchase of the aforesaid items, it is evident that the MRP of these items was Rs.5797/-. After giving discount the payable amount came to Rs.4018/- But the OP after adding Rs.220.99 as Vat tax amount, had raised the bill for a sum of Rs.4261. In the tags, Exs.C2 to C4, the MRP of the items has been mentioned as inclusive of all taxes. It may be stated that once on the tag , it is categorically mentioned that MRP is inclusive of all taxes, then charging of extra vat or tax, is certainly against the trade practice and the O.P is liable to refund the amount charged on account of Vat from the complainant. 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 failing 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 Rs.220.99 rounded off Rs.221/- charged from the complainant 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 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: 26.7 .2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
