DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 183 of 18.5.2017
Decided on: 8.11. 2017
Ms. Tarika Sandhu w/o Sh.Simranjit Singh R/o # 60, Century Enclave, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Chawla Fashion, Shop No.5, Gini & Jony, Near Indus Bank, Bhupindra Road 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
Smt.Tarika Sandhu, 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:
- Gini & Jony” offered 50% discount on M.R.P. of the product. Persuaded from the said offer, the complainant purchased “two pairs of trouser ” from OP vide cash memo No.DS-1672 dated 27.12.2016. The M.R.P. of the one trouser was Rs.1499/- and of the other was Rs.899/-( inclusive of all taxes). The gross bill amount of the said items after discount came to Rs.1199/- but the OP charged Rs.1272- after having added Rs.65.94/- 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 vat 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.
-
In the written version it purchase of the items by the complainant has been admitted. It is stated that it was indicated by it to the complainant that the discounted price was exclusive of Vat and the Vat charged over and above the discounted sale price was paid to the Govt.There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
-
-
6. Ex.C1, is the bill of the items purchased by the complainant. In the said bill, the M.R.P of the said items is mentioned as Rs.1499/- and Rs.899/- respectively. The amount after giving discount @50% is mentioned as Rs.750/- & Rs.450/-respectively. In this way, the payable amount comes to Rs.1200/-. But the OP after adding Rs.65.95 on account of tax raised the bill for an amount of Rs.1272/-for the said items. 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 trouser in question, was Rs.1499/-.In the said tag , it is specifically mentioned that M.R.P. is inclusive of all taxes. It may be stated that as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014, no extra amount over and above the M.R.P., printed on the goods could be charged, even the same has been sold on discount, as M.R.P. has already been included all taxes levied on the goods. Since the OP has charged tax on the discounted price of the product, from the complainant, in violation of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014, therefore, it has not only committed deficiency in service but has also indulged in to unfair trade practice. The OP is thus not only liable to refund the amount charged on account of tax but is also liable to compensate the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment . It is also liable to pay 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.65.94, rounded off Rs.66/- charged on account of tax, to the complainant.
- 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: 8.11 .2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
