Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII,      5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

                                      Complaint Case No.132/16.05.2017

CA Manish Aggarwal

D-178 Ground Floor, Ramprstha Colony,

Ghaziabad UP, PIN- 201011                                                                      …Complainant

                                                    Versus

OP1- M/s Devi Sahai Charan Dass

Retail Shop No.4, Mangal Bhawan, 

Ajmal Khan Road,Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005.                                                               

OP2- M/s COBB Apparels Pvt. Ltd.

A-9, Mangolpuri Industrial Area,  Phase 2, 

Mangolpuri, Delhi-110034                                                                         ...Opposite Party

                                                                                    Date of filing:             16.05.2017

Coram:                                                                       Date of Order:            08.08.2024

Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

Ms Rashmi Bansal, Member -Female

                                                       FINAL ORDER

Inder Jeet Singh, President

It is scheduled today for order (item no.13)

1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) –The complainant has grievances of unfair trade practice against the OPs that the OP1 had charged an extra amount of Rs. 240/- of VAT when he had purchased two coats. He seeks refund of that amount besides compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and penal action against the OPs.

1.2. The complaint is opposed by OP2 that neither there is any excess charges made from the complainant nor any unfair trade practice but articles were sold at MRP shown, consequently the OPs are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.

2. (Case of complainant) –Briefly, the OP1 is selling readymade garments as an exclusive showroom of OP2, manufacturer of garments under brand name COBB. The goods were being sold at discount scheme of 50% and price tag was also attached with each item. The complainant ordered two coats each having price tag of Rs. 7,999/-, inclusive of all taxes and discount of 50% was mentioned. But the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 5,040/-, which is extra Rs. 240/- for VAT and cash memo no. 6060-0007556 dated 06.11.2016 was issued. When complainant pointed out about extra charges, the staff had misbehaved him. Thence, complainant issued notice dated 27.01.2017 that the extra charge of Rs. 240/- is in violation of Rule 18 Legal Metrology Rules r/w Legal Metrology Act 2011 but neither the amount was refunded nor the reply was given. That is why the complaint, since the acts of OPs have caused humiliation, mental pain and agony.  The complaint is accompanied with cash memo, price tag of Rs. 7,999/- inclusive of all taxes, notice dated 27.01.2017 with track report.

3.1 (Case of OP2)-The OP2 filed the detailed reply under the preliminary objections and reply on merits, containing identical facts and objections. In brief, it is not a case of charging anything over and above MRP but it is case of selling the product at certain price after applying discount. The MRP of product in question is Rs. 4,799/-, the total amount was Rs. 9,598/- (Rs. 4,799x2), while the net price after allowing discount but including VAT of Rs. 2,39.95p, the amounts comes to Rs. 5,040/- (i.e. Rs. 2519.48x2) [the paragraph 4 of the reply also demonstrate with the steps 1 to 6 being followed in the system]. During the sale, the OP displays MRP as well as net price after discount but including VAT on each and every item of all counters. In this way the net price of Rs. 2519.48p vis-à-vis MRP of Rs. 4,799/- of each item was mentioned for the blazer of each counter. The OP2 also denies all other allegations in the complaint. There is no merit in the complaint, there is no violation of the Consumer Protection Act or Legal Metrology Act or Rules there under. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The written statement is accompanied with online return under the VAT.

3.2. The OP1 has not filed any reply and it was proceeded ex-parte on 13.09.2017  for want of appearance.

4. (Replication of complainant to reply of OP2) –The complainant filed detailed rejoinder to the written statement of OP, while denying all allegations of written statement but reaffirming the complaint as correct. It would not give any benefit to the OP nor VAT return will support the plea of OP2.

5.1. (Evidence)- In order to establish the complaint, the complainant led his evidence by filing affidavit coupled with the documentary record

5.2. On the other side OP2 led evidence by filing affidavit of Sh.  Sumit Singhal, Manager and authorized representative of OP, the affidavit is replica of the written statement.

5.3 The OP1 remained ex-parte, no evidence was led for want of filing reply.

6.1 (Final hearing)- The complainant and the OP2 have filed their respective written arguments. The written arguments of the parties are replica of their pleading and evidence, moreover, the complainant has reproduced Rule 18 of Legal Metrology Packed Commodities Rules 2011.

6.2. The parties were also given opportunity to make oral submission The complainant himself made oral submissions but, no oral submissions were made on behalf of OP2 despite opportunities.

7.1 (Findings)- The case and stand of both the sides are considered, keeping in view the  facts, features and record, inclusive of documents proved besides statutory provisions of law and rules mentioned.

7.2. By taking into account stock of all the material and after considering them analytically, the complaint is dismissed for the following reasons: –

(i) According to complainant, the OP1 had charged extra amount of Rs. 240/- as VAT, which increases the tagged price shown with the article and displayed, whereas according to OP2, it is not so but by following the procedure, discount scheme and steps for the purposes of VAT.

(ii) The entire situation may be put in a capsule, like, the price of first article is consisting basic price of Rs. 4,558+Rs. 241 VAT = Rs. 4,799/-. The price of second article is basic price of Rs. 4,558+Rs. 241 VAT = Rs. 4,799/-. There is discounts scheme of 50%.

(iii) The price for sold article would be Rs. 4,799/-(i.e. basic price Rs. 4,558+Rs. 241 tax)+ Rs. 4,799/-(i.e. basic price Rs. 4,558+Rs. 241 tax) less Rs. 4,558/-[being 50% discount of basic price of two article] = Rs. 5040/-.

            The complainant is computing the amount that since there is price of one article of Rs. 4,799/- inclusive of tax, the other article of Rs. 4,799/- would be in given discount, being 50% but actually the 50% discount would on the basic price of the article but the VAT would be attracted. The product was sold at MRP.

(iv) The rules produced in the written arguments are pertaining to package commodities vis-à-vis no contrary record is shown that the VAT charged as such was not deposited by OP with the Department of Trade & Taxes, Govt. of Delhi.

(v)  There is no proof of unfair trade practice.

7.3  Accordingly the complaint fails and stands dismissed. No orders as to costs.

8.  Announced on this 08th day of August 2024 [श्र!वण 17, साका 1946]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances, besides to upload on the website of this Commission.

[ijs103]