DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.1 69 of 11.5.2017

                                      Decided on:   2.8.2017

Paramjit Singh Walia s/o Sh.Raghbir Singh, R/o # 19A-1, Ranbir Marg, Model Town, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

KAPSONS FASHION PVT. LTD., Shop No.7-8, Bhupindra Road, Patiala through its Prop./Sales Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.Paramjit Singh Walia, complainant in person.

                                      Opposite party ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                       Sh.Paramjit Singh Walia, Advocate, 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 brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                That  the OP in order to promote the sale of its products manufactured under the brand name of “U.S.POLO” offered 40% discount on M.R.P. of the products. Persuaded from the offer,  the complainant purchased “Mens Jkt Black” from OP, vide retail invoice  No. SLPT 33927 dated 26.1.2017. The M.R.P. of the said item was Rs.7499/-( inclusive of all taxes). The gross bill amount of the said item after discount came to Rs.4499/-.40 but the OP charged Rs.4772- after having added Rs.272.21/-  as VAT. The payment was made through credit card. He brought the matter into the notice of OP, who told that VAT is extra as per T&C and was charged as per directions and instructions given by the manufacturer. It is averred that the seller cannot charge extra amount over and above the  M.R.P. of the product. The charging of excess amount on account of VAT is not only illegal but also amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the OP to refund the excess amount charged on account of VAT and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses.

3.                On being put to notice, OP failed to come present despite service and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1  to C3 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the  complainant in person and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6.                Ex.C1, is the bill of the jacket, issued by the OP. In the bill, the M.R.P of the product is mentioned as Rs.7499/-.The discount amount is mentioned as Rs.2999/-. In this way, the payable amount comes out to be Rs.4499.4(rounded off Rs.4500/-)/-. But the OP after adding Rs.272.21 on account of VAT, charged an amount of Rs.4742/-from the complainant.  In the tag, Ex.C2, the M.R.P. of the product has been mentioned as Rs.7499/-(inclusive of all taxes). Thus, by charging  vat on the discounted amount, the O.P. has not only committed  deficiency in service but has indulged in to  unfair trade practice also and is thus liable to refund the extra amount charged from the complainant on account of Vat. 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:

1. To refund  to the complainant Rs.272.21, charged on account of  Vat.
2. To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation, for  causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. 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.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 2.8. 2017                

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER