DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.163 of 2017
Date of institution: 27.02.2017 Date of decision : 01.02.2018
Charanjit Singh son of Late Amar Singh, resident of House No.294, Didar Nagar, Sector 15, Kharar, District Mohali.
…….Complainant
Versus
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., The North Country Mall, NH-21, Mohali-Kharar Road, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Proprietor/Incharge/Manager.
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the complainant. Shri Saurabh Gulia, counsel for the OP.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant after visiting outlet of OP on 09.02.2017 purchased T-shirts, on which MRP of Rs.699/- (inclusive of all taxes) and of Rs.799/- (inclusive of all taxes) was mentioned. 30% discount was offered on MRP and the discounted price as such was Rs.489.30 N.P. and Rs.559.30 N.P. However, OP charged Rs.1,113.04 N.P., which included amount of Rs.63.44 N.P. as VAT @ 6.05%. Charging of VAT on the discounted price alleged to be unfair trade practice. Officials of OP claimed as if they are charging this VAT on the discounted price from each and every customer as per instructions of the management. So this complaint filed for seeking refund of the extra paid amount of Rs.63.44 N.P. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.35,000/- more claimed.
2. In reply, it is claimed that complaint is false and vexatious and same is not maintainable, more so when this Forum has no jurisdiction. OP clearly mentioned the words “Conditions Apply” and “VAT Extra” in its advertisement and marketing material and as such charging of VAT is alleged to be proper. Sale value of the goods was below MRP and as such no unfair trade practice alleged to be adopted by OP. Charging of VAT on the discounted price is explained to every customer. VAT is statutory liability of OP because the same to be deposited in the Govt. exchequer. Total cash collected from complainant was less than MRP value mentioned on the price tags and the collection of VAT done as per mandate of Govt. Department. Admittedly bill/invoice of amount of Rs.1,113.04 N.P. was issued. Terms of the offered discount are widely advertised and published in local newspapers and even displayed on the Lifestyle Store regularly for mentioning that VAT will be charged extra on the discounted price and as such it is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on part of the OP. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith bill Ex.C-1 and thereafter closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Baljit Talwar, authorised representative alongwith copy of advertisement Ex.OP-1 and thereafter closed evidence.
5. Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments of counsel for the parties heard and records gone through.
6. Affidavit of complainant alongwith invoice Ex.C-1 proves purchase of two items bearing MRP of Rs.699/- and Rs.799/- each, on which discount @ 30% was given and the discounted price was Rs.489.30 N.P. and Rs.559.30 N.P. However, on the discounted price amount, VAT of Rs.63.44 N.P. collected and that is why total amount of Rs.1,113.04 N.P. charged from the complainant on 09.02.2017 by OP, having its business premises on NH-21, Mohali- Kharar Road, SAS Nagar. So certainly this Forum has jurisdiction. VAT amount as such is charged on the discounted price, despite the fact that admittedly MRP is inclusive of all taxes. Practice of charging extra VAT on the discounted price has been declared unfair trade practice by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as M/s Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma decided on 4.01.2017 bearing Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017. Similar is the view taken in case titled as M/s Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju decided on 23.05.2017 bearing First Appeal No.136 of 2017 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh. In view of ratio of these cases, charging of VAT amount of Rs.63.44 N.P. on the discounted price is an unfair trade practice adopted by the OP. As such the complainant is entitled for refund of extra charged amount of Rs.63.44 N.P. with interest @ 6% from the date of purchase namely 09.02.2017 till payment. Even complainant is entitled for compensation of mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
7. Counsel for the OP vehemently contends that the judgment given by Hon’ble National Commission on 04.01.2017 in Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 titled as M/s Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Special Leave Petition has been admitted in that respect vide orders dated 31.03.2017 and as such the matter is still under consideration of the highest court of the country. It is well settled that bare act of filing appeal does not amount to stay of operation of the order under challenge and as such even if Special Leave Petition may have been admitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, despite that the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission still has the force and as such the same has to be applied, particularly when the operation of that judgment of case titled as M/s Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma (supra) is not stayed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Order 41 Rule 5 CPC clearly provides that bare act of filing the appeal against an order under challenge will not tantamount to stay of operation of the order forming the subject matter of appeal. That analogy applies to the facts of this case also.
8. It is also contended by counsel for the OP that VAT is indirect tax which is bound to be collected by the vendor from the purchaser for depositing the same in the Govt. Department and as such no unfair trade practice adopted by the OP particularly when as per display by the OP the VAT to be charged extra on the discounted price. Reliance on Ex.OP-1 is placed to show that on 20% discount, VAT to be charged extra as per display given by OP in its advertisement. However, the discount in the present case is of 30% and as such said advertisement is meaningless for the purpose of this case. So long as the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case M/s Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma is not set aside, the same to govern the field qua pending cases or the cases to be decided by the Consumer Forums. Being so, the decision given by Sales Tax Authorities is not to apply to such like consumer complaints. So benefit from the ratio of case Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Ernakulam Vs. Advani Oorlikon (P) Ltd., AIR 1980 SC 609 cannot be gained by counsel for the OP because benefit of ratio of that case available when an assessment of the turnover of the assessee for the purpose of sales tax collection to be made. In this case before us, provisions of Sales Tax Act have no relevancy because no assessment for computation of assessee’s turnover is to be done. So certainly, the complaint is maintainable and complainant on account of suffered mental agony and harassment entitled for compensation and also to litigation expenses, but to reasonable amount.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed in terms that the OP to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.63.44 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 09.02.2017 till payment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP. Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Announced
February 01, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
