Haryana

Ambala

CC/207/2017

Deepak Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

COBB Apparels Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Bedi

03 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; AMBALA.

C.C.No.207 of 2017.                  

         Date of Instt.:16.06.2017.            

      Date of Decision: 03.01.2018.

Deepak Singh s/o Mangal Singh s/o Satpal r/o H.No.391, Nagar Panchayat, Naya Gaon, Pb.

                                                                             ..Complainant 

  Versus

1.Cobb Apparels Pvt. Ltd.Shop No.2 (16/2AB), Adjacent OBC Bank, Ambala City, Ambala 134003 through its Authorized Representative.           

2.Cobb Apparels Pvt.Ltd. A-9, Mangolpuri Industrial Area Phase-2 Delhi 110034 through its Manager or its Authorized Representative.

                                                                        ..Opposite parties.

              Complaint under Section 12 of CP Act

Before:                 SH.D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.                                                                SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                                                                                                                                                                                                                   MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                  

Present:                Sh.Rahul Bedi, Advocate for complainant.                                                          Sh.Chetan Bundela, Advocate for OPs.

ORDER

                             The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs with the averments that he had purchased product from OP No.1 after paying a sum of Rs.315/- (round figure) vide retail invoice dated 05.06.2017. The MRP of the product was Rs.499/- inclusive of all taxes as per tag on the product. There was 40 % discount on the product, therefore, the price comes to Rs.315/- but OPs charged VAT @ 5.25 % on the discounted price which is Rs.15/-. The complainant requested the Ops not to charge VAT but they did not pay any heed by saying that VAT is being charged under the policy of company. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part as it has illegally charged extra VAT on the discounted item and earned money by illegal means from the complainant. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 & Annexure C2.

2.                          Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed joint reply wherein it has submitted that it is not a case of charging anything over and above Maximum Retail Price (MRP) but it about selling the product at a certain price after applying discount. The MRP of the product was Rs.499/- and after allowing discount net price was Rs.315/- (round figure). No illegality has ever been committed by the OPs because as per discounting policy of the OPs the objective was to reduce the ultimate price which the customer had to pay from Rs.499/- to Rs.315/- and the discount only happened to be 60 % of the MRP. The discount was seasonal and the selling prices vary from time to time. If the complainant feels cheated then the OPs are ready to take back the item and to refund the full amount to the complainant subject to returning of the product. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RB and document Annexure R1.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                          Under the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2006, certain guidelines have been provided so that the consumer cannot be charged over to the maximum price printed on the goods by the manufacturer. These guidelines are as follows:

1.     Consumer goods mean all goods and items brought in the market for sale and are meant for the use and consumption of the consumers;

2.     Cost of production means cost incurred directly or indirectly by the manufacturer in the production of goods;

3.     Printing means printing of the cost of production and retail price at a visible place on the product in Hindi and English and the local language of the place it is sold; and

4.     Maximum retail price means such price at which the product shall be sold in retail and such price shall include all taxes levied on the product.

In the present case MRP of the product to the tune of Rs.499/- is not disputed and the discount of 40 % is also not disputed. Perusal of Annexure C1 (Invoice) reveals that the OPs have charged Rs.15.72/- as VAT from the complainant. The Ops have come with the plea that the TAX has been charged as per the policy of the company and no illegality has been done in doing so. In the present case the OPs have charged the VAT twice on the products as the rate of Rs.499/- (Annexure C2) Tag of the products itself show that the amount included all the taxes but the OPs have VAT after discount of 40% again which shows that VAT has been charged twice.  This amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  The OPs cannot be allowed to charge the VAT twice.  There is no dispute that the OP has charged less than the MRP after giving the discount of 40%, but, in this way it cleverly charged VAT twice which cannot be allowed nor the OPs were legally entitled to charge the VAT twice. It was further noted that MRP includes all other taxes and on the reduced price, VAT cannot be imposed again. On this point reliance can be taken from case laws titled as M/s Aero Club (Woodland) Vs. Rakesh Verma Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 by Hon’ble National Commission, ETHNICITY (A Division of Shree Balaji Ethnicity Retail Ltd.) Vs. Heena Aggarwal decided on 02.01.2017 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal, Chandigarh in First Appeal No. A/331/2016. Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as M/s Adi Sports Vs. Shyam Sunder Sharma and Anr. decided on 23.05.2016 in Appeal No.101 of 2016 has held that We are satisfied that once it is mentioned in a label put on T-shirts that MRP includes the taxes imposed, then after giving discount, it was not open to the appellant to tax the goods again. For adopting the said procedure, nothing has been brought on record by the appellant, to say that levy was justified. Probably double taxation is not permissible. The appellant, thus, adopted unfair trade practice, on that count.

5.                From the above it is clear that the OPs are deficient in providing service besides indulging in unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (1) (r) of Consumer Protection Act which is as under:  

(r) “unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice.

6.                Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case this Forum has in a firm view that the present complaint deserves acceptance because the Ops are indulged in the unfair trade practice as discussed above. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with costs and OPs are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:             

1. To pay Rs.15/- (round figure) (charged on account of VAT).
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and unfair trade practice.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- on account of litigation charges.

 

Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 03.01.2018                                                                                                                       

            

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)   (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (D.N.ARORA)                MEMBER                    MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT