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

                                     Consumer Complaint No. 228 of 2017                                     Date of institution:  22.03.2017                                       Date of decision   :  14.12.2017

Shifali Mahajan, resident of # 203/1, CHB Flats, Sector-55, Chandigarh.

                                     ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Chawla Fashions, Shop No.11, Ground Floor, Paras Downtown Square Mall, Ground Floor, Zirakpur through its Store Manager.

                                                              ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Sections 12 of

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Sukaam Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                OP Ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Shifali Mahajan has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant had gone to the OP on 14.03.2017 to purchase clothes. The OP in order to promote sale had offered 30% discount on MRP of the products. The complainant purchased one shirt the MRP of which was Rs.1,499/-. However, while issuing the retail invoice/receipt dated 14.03.2017, the OP charged Rs.64.03 as VAT on the MRP of the product purchased by the complainant.  The complainant raised protest against the VAT charges but the officials of the OP refused to entertain the complainant and did not show any notification or regulation favoring such practice of charging extra VAT on the discounted price.  The complainant then refused to purchase the products but the officials of the OP told that as the invoice has been generated and cannot be canceled, thus left with no other option the complainant had to pay the billed amount.  The complainant has alleged that the charging VAT on the MRP is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.    Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund him the extra amount of VAT charged to the tune of Rs.64.03 with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment i.e. 14.03.2017;  to pay him Rs.50,000/- compensation and Rs.25,000/-  as litigation costs.

3.             Notice sent to the OP through registered post was delivered on 24.05.2017, however, none appeared for it and the OP was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.06.2017.

 4.            In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW-1/1 and original tag Ex.C-1 and original bill Ex.C-2

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the price tag Ex.C-1 shows that the price of the shirt purchased by the complainant was inclusive of all taxes. However, the OP at the time of issuance of invoice Ex.C-2 again charged VAT to the tune of Rs.64.03 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 arguments it is established from the material placed on record  i.e. tag Ex. C-1 that the MRP of the shirt purchased by the complainant was inclusive of all taxes. However, the OP again charged VAT to the tune of Rs.64.03 while issuing invoice Ex.C-2.   The OP has not appeared before this Forum despite service of notice.  The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties argue and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea, which was never put forward in pleadings. As such, the evidence adduced by the complainant remains unrebutted.

7.             We are fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in M/s. Aero Club (Woodland) Vs. Rakesh Sharma, Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 wherein it has been held that charging of VAT on the discounted price is unfair trade practice.

8.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the case law, we find that charging of taxes 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.64.03 (Rs. Sixty Four and paisa three 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 30 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 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: 14.12.2017

                                                (A.P.S.Rajput)

 President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member