DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.269 of 11.7.2017
Decided on: 20.12.2017
Rita Rani D/o Late Sh.Dharampal Kaushik resident of # C-86, Near Old Satsang Bhawan, Vikas Colony, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
The COBB Apparels Pvt.Ltd., Shop No.SCO-14, Bhupindra Nagar Road, Patiala through its Sales Manager/Proprietor/Partner.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Jaspreet Singh, Advocate,
counsel for complainant .
Sh.Desh Raj, Sales Manager of the opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Ms. Rita, 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 Manager of the OP has tendered in evidence his sworn affidavits, Exs.OPA&OPB alongwith document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence of the OP.
-
6. From the Tag ,Ex.C2, it is evident that the M.R.P. of the aforesaid item has been mentioned as Rs.1099/-(inclusive of all taxes). Ex.C1, is the retail invoice whereby the complainant has purchased the said item. On the said invoice also the M.R.P. has been mentioned as Rs.1099/- . After giving discount of Rs.659.40 @60%, the payable amount has come to Rs.439.60. But the OP after having added Rs.26.60 as Vat has raised the bill for an amount of Rs.466/-. 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 selling on discount as, M.R.P. has already been included all taxes levied on the goods.. Thus, by charging extra amount on account of Vat, the OP has not only committed deficiency in service but also indulged into unfair trade practice and is liable to refund the same to the complainant. 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 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 Rs.26.60 to the complainant, charged excess on account of Vat.
- 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.
-
DATED: 20.12.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
