DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 83 of 10.3.2017

                                      Decided on:   11.5.2017

Ms. Tarika Sandhu w/o Sh.Simranjit 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.P.S.Walia,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite party ex-parte.                                     

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                 Ms. Tarika Sandhu 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% discount on M.R.P. on 27.12.2016. Persuaded  from the offer,  the complainant purchased “heavy winter jacket” from OP vide retail invoice No.DS/1671 dated 27.12.2016. The M.R.P. of the said item was Rs.2499/-, which is inclusive of all taxes.The gross bill amount of the said items after discount came to Rs.1749/- but the OP charged Rs.1855/- after having adding  Rs.96.21/- on account of VAT. It is stated that the seller cannot charge any tax whatsoever over and above the MRP.The charging of excess amount on account of VAT is not only illegal but amounts to  unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. She brought the matter to the notice of OP but who told that VAT is extra as per T&C and was charged as per directions and instructions given by the manufacturer. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be accepted and OP may be directed 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 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 & C2 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 the bill Ex.C1, it is evident that the complainant purchased  the jacket bearing style No.121090061034, size 08, with M.R.P of 2499/- after 30% discount on the same, for an amount of Rs.1749/-. 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, is Rs.2499/-.In the said tag , it is specifically mentioned that M.R.P. is inclusive of all taxes. But the OP charged Rs.1855/-after adding Rs.96.21 on account of VAT.  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 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:

1. To refund  Rs.96.21 being charged as Vat.
2. To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation for  causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. 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:11.5.2017                

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER