Delhi

West Delhi

CC/17/87

SATYABIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

EP ELECTRONIC - Opp.Party(s)

08 Apr 2019

ORDER

 

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

         150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO.  87/17

SATYABIR SINGH

S/O SH. KALU RAM,

R/O H. NO. 917, SEC.4,

REWARI HARYANA

 

VERSUS

1. M/S EP ELECTRONIC PARADISE PVT. LTD.

(HOUSE OF ELECTORNICS)

WZ-297, G-BLOCK, HARI NAGAR,

JAIL ROAD, NEW DELHI-110058

ALSO AT HEAD OFFICE 13, VAISHALI,

PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI-110034                                   

O R D E R

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as stated by the complainant  are that he purchased electronics items, one LG. washing machine for a sum of Rs. 17,777/- and Vat was charged @ 12.5% second item Haier Led for a sum of Rs. 19,775/- for which also vat @ 12.5% was charged on 30.09.2016 from OP. It is alleged that the total amount included the vat but the OP again charged vat @ 12.5% and the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs. 47500/- instead of sum of Rs. 42,222/- which included the Vat. It is averred that the complainant had to pay extra amount of Rs. 5,277/-.  Hence the present complaint for directions to the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.5,277/- excess amount paid and also prayed for Rs. 5,000/- on account of harassment  and also a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for litigation expenses.        

   Despite notice OP failed to appear and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.04.2017.  

When the complainant was asked to lead evidence, the complainant testified the contents of the complaint on oath. He also relied on invoice no.JR/R-2034/2016-17 dated 30.09.2016.  

We have heard complainant in person  and during course of arguments contended that the only claim of the complainant is that he has been charged vat twice and OP is not ready to rectify the error.

The main controversy is as to whether the complainant is entitled for the relief he claimed. From the perusal of the invoice it is crystal clear that the OP has already charged vat on the products purchased by the complainant and after that over and above also added vat on the total amount which already included VAT. Therefore, it clearly shows that there is error on part of OP by charging VAT twice. Hence OP is liable to refund the excess amount charged by them.

In view of above discussion and observations we direct OP to refund a sum of Rs. 5,277/- excess amount charged by them and also award a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and litigation expenses within 45 days of the receipt of the order. In case of default OP is liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization.

Copy of order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to record room.                              

 

 (PUNEET LAMBA)                                                            (K.S. MOHI)                                                                       

     Member                                                                         President