Haryana

Ambala

CC/348/2018

Rohit Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cobb Apparels Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

21 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.:  348 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution          :   15.10.2018.

                                                          Date of decision   :   21.08.2019.

 

Rohit Sharma s/o Shri Ajay Sharma, r/o village Raipur Kathlaur, Pathankot, Punjab.

                                                                                       …. Complainant.                                                   Versus

Cobb Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.2 (16/2AB) Adjacent OBC Bank, Ambala City-134003.

                    …. Opposite Party

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       None for the complainant.

Shri Sandeep Gupta, Advocate for the OP.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

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 ‘OP’), praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To refund Rs.6.27/- charged on account of VAT.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith interest @18% per annum.
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
   382.  

Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

                   In nutshell, the brief facts of the present complaint are that on 05.06.2017, the complainant purchased one product from the OP by paying consideration amount of Rs.126/-. The MRP of the product was Rs.199/-, which was inclusive of all taxes. In order to promote the sale of the articles, the OP offered 40% discount on the MRP of the said product i.e. Rs.79/-. After deducting discount of Rs.79/-, the price of the said product comes out to be Rs.120/-, but in addition to that, the OP charged VAT @ 5.25% on the discounted price of the product i.e. Rs.6.27, and raised bill of Rs.126/-, despite the fact that the price of the product was inclusive of all taxes. After seeing the bill, complainant resisted, but the OP forced him to pay the bill amount of Rs.126/-, as the OP said that once bill has been raised, then he has to pay the net payable amount. By charging VAT extra on the discounted price, the OP has committed deficiency in service and has caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and has filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding time barred; non-joinder of necessary parties and jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that the VAT can be charged as per the Government of Haryana Notification i.e. The Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Haryana Act No.6 of 2003). The amount which was charged for VAT has been deposited into the account of Government of Haryana and as such no benefit has been taken by the OP by charging the VAT amount from the complainant. The OP flashed the board of discount in the shop and no person was compelled or allured to purchase the goods. The complainant purchased the goods as per his choice and paid the amount without any objection. The same complainant lodged the similar cases with similar pleas against the OP which shows that intention of the complainant time and again to purchase from the OP store. It is clever tactic of the complainant to file such type of false complaint to get extract money from the OP. There is no deficiency in service on its part and complaint may be dismissed with cost.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 & C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Shri Roshan Kumar, Authorized Representative of OP company as Annexure OP/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1 & OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the OP and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 Annexure C-1 is the invoice dated 05.06.2017, whereby, the complainant purchased Hankey-EX from the OP. From the said invoice, it is evident that the OP, after giving discount of Rs.79.60 and after having added VAT of Rs.6.27, has raised the bill for an amount of Rs.126/-. In the Price Tag Annexure C-2, it is specifically mentioned that the Maximum Retail Price (hereinafter referred to as “MRP”) of Hankey-EX is Rs.199/- inclusive of all taxes. As per Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2014, the ‘MRP” means ‘such price at which the consumer goods shall be sold in retail and such price shall include all taxes, levied on the goods’. No extra amount over and above the MRP, printed on the goods, could be charged, even the same has been sold on discount, the MRP has already been included all the taxes levied on the goods. Since the OP has charged VAT 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 committed deficiency in service and is thus, liable to refund the amount of Rs.6.27 (round off Rs.6/-) charged on account of VAT and is also liable to compensate the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment to him, alongwith litigation expenses. In the case of Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill, First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 01.09.2015, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, has held that “no one can charge more than the M.R.P. and M.R.P. includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all the taxes, then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-

1. To refund Rs.6/-, charged on account of VAT, to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

The OP is further directed to comply with the order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period of default. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :21.08.2019.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)           (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member             President