Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/187

Vivek Maini - Complainant(s)

Versus

colorplus Fashion Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

07 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 187 of 19.03.2018

Date of Decision            :   07.05.2018

 

Vivek Maini s/o Mohan Lal Maini r/o 539/119/-A, Street No.5, Preet Nagar, New Shiv Puri, Ludhiana Punjab.                                                                                                                                                         ….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

Colorplus Fashions Limited.Franchise:- The Attire-7, Carnival Complex, Mall Road, Ludhiana Punjab through its Manager or authorized representative.

    Opposite party

 

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Karan Verma, Advocate

For OP                           :         Sh.Ankush Malik, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.              Complainant purchased one shirt for his own use from OP on 12.02.2017 by paying an amount of Rs.1643/- through invoice. MRP of the product was Rs.3099/- and after discount at the rate of 50% on the MRP, the discounted price came to Rs.1549.50P. However, OP charged Rs.93.74P as VAT on the discounted price. That practice of charging VAT on the discounted price alleged to be an illegal practice and as such, this complaint for seeking refund of extra charged amount of Rs.93.74P with interest @18% per annum. Compensation for mental and physical harassment of Rs.25,000/, but litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- more claimed.

2.              In written reply filed by OP, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is vexatious and malicious because complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. On the produced bill by the complainant, no mobile number of the customer is mentioned. Moreover, the complaint is cyclostyled one. It is denied that OP indulged in any unfair trade practice. Moreover, it is claimed that amount charged was much below MRP. Requirement of mentioning MRP on readymade garments is as per the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities)Rules, 2011. Definition of retail sale price refers the maximum price at which the commodity in packaged form may be sold. Products cannot be sold at a price over and above the MRP, but this does not mean that VAT is not payable by the consumer. Rather, the VAT payable to the Government only after sale on selling price. Therefore, it is claimed that VAT can be charged from the customer. Regarding levy of VAT, adequate display boards in the shops are put up for mentioning that on sale, VAT will be charged extra. Amount claimed by the complainant is exorbitant. After voluntarily buying the goods, the customer pays the VAT and billing amount and as such, now complainant is estopped from raising such dispute. It is not denied that MRP of the product was Rs.3099/- and the same was sold at discounted price. Other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Complainant in order to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 and Ex.C2 and thereafter, counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

4.                Counsel for OP also tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A of Sh.Aman Arora, the authorized representative of OP and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments by counsel for the parties alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                As per law laid down in cases titled as M/s. Aero Club (Woodland) through its Manager vs. Rakesh Sharma, bearing Revision No.3477 of 2016 decided on 4.1.2017 by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and Ethnicity vs Heena Aggarwal-2017(1)CLT-621(Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ), in case, discount on MRP is given under circumstances that MRP is inclusive of all taxes, then act of deliberately charging VAT and other taxes on price after discount, is an unfair trade practice.

7.                In this case, tag of the product produced as Ex.C2 shows that MRP is inclusive of all taxes. It is not disputed that after discount, the price of the product was Rs.1549.50P and VAT of Rs.93.74P charged on the discounted price. So, from this produced documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, it is made out that VAT has been charged extra on the discounted price, despite the fact that MRP is inclusive of all taxes. So, keeping in view the law as cited above, there is no escape from the conclusion that OP adopted unfair trade practice by charging VAT on the discounted price. There cannot be an estoppel against the law/statute and as     such, even if complainant paid the demanded amount without protest, despite that rule of estoppel does not come in his way. No material produced on record to show that the display boards at conspicuous place were put up for making known to the public(customers) that VAT will be charged on the discounted price. Copy of that advertisement of charging extra VAT on the discounted price even not produced and as such, submission advanced by counsel for OP has no force that due notice of charging VAT on discounted price was given to the complainant and other customers. As complainant due to payment of excess charged VAT amount suffered mental agony and harassment and stood dragged in litigation and as such, he is entitled for compensation and to litigation expenses, but of reasonable amount.

8.                Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP will refund excess charged amount of Rs.93.74 NP with interest @6% per annum w.e.f.12.02.2017 till payment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Vinod Gulati)                                (G.K. Dhir)

              Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:07.05.2018

Gurpreet Sharma.