DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                      Consumer Complaint No.461 of 2016                                                   Date of institution: 03.08.2016                                                  Date of decision   :  05.04.2017

Harsh Tandon son of Ashwini Tandon resident of House No.3226/3, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.

                                     ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Gini & Jony Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, A- 601, City Point, Next to Kohinoor Hotel, JB Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai Maharashtra 400059.

2.     Gini & Jony Freedom Fashions Ltd. – Chawla Fashion (739), through its Store Manager, SCO -58, Phase-7, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

                                                               ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 of

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Opposite Parties ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Harsh Tandon has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The OPs in order to promote sale of products, offered 40% discount on shoes and apparels. Being enticed by the offer, the complainant visited OP No.2 on 05.07.2017   and purchased a T-shirt vide bill dated 05.07.2016 for Rs.508/-. On going through the bill, the complainant found that an amount of Rs.29/- has been charged by the OP No.2 towards VAT on discounted MRP price. The complainant objected to this charging of extra VAT @ 6% on the discounted MRP price and asked OP No.2 to provide him copy of notification or any regulation issued by any Taxation Authorities for the time being in force favouring such practice of charging extra VAT on the discounted MRP. The complainant paid the amount to OP No.2 under protest.  Charging of VAT on the discounted MRP is illegal and against the provisions of Income Tax and other laws. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs on 06.07.2016 which was duly received by the OPs.    Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund him extra charged amount of VAT to the tune of Rs.29.00; to pay him Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice;  Rs.25,000/- for harassment; Rs.15,000/- for litigation expenses and alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and delayed settlement of claim of Rs.5,000/-.

3.             In response to the notice issued to the OPs, Shri Naresh Kumar, Executive of the OPs appeared on 29.09.2016 and filed authority letter and the complaint was adjourned to 14.10.2016 for filing reply. Thereafter, neither the reply was filed nor anybody appeared on behalf of the OPs. Hence the OPs were proceeded against ex-parted vide order dated 14.10.2016.

 4.            In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; original bill Ex.C-1; legal notice Ex.C-2 and postal receipt Ex.C-3.

5.             The complainant has argued that the OPs had offered discount of 40% on their products and accordingly he purchased a T-shirt the MRP of which was Rs.799/-. However, after discount on MRP, the OP No.2 had charged an amount of Rs.29/- on account of VAT on the MRP which as per the complainant is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

6.             After hearing the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence and the written as well as oral submissions, we find that in Ex.C-1 it is no where mentioned that MRP of Rs.799/- of the product purchased by the complainant is inclusive of all taxes.  The OPs have offered discount of 40% on the product and accordingly after discount of 40% the discounted price on the product came out to be Rs.319.60/-.  The price of the product after discount of Rs.319.60 came out to be Rs.479/-.  The OPs have charged VAT and surcharge on Rs.479/- which came out to be Rs.29/-. Thus, the total amount charged by the OPs is Rs.508/- from the complainant. However, when it is no where mentioned that the MRP of Rs.799/- is inclusive of all taxes, it cannot be said that the OPs were not entitled to charge any VAT or surcharge on the price after giving discount.  It is also mentioned on Ex.C-1 that total sale price exclusive of VAT. Thus, we hold that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussions we hold that the complainant could not prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 28.03.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 05.04.2017

                                              (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                          President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member