Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/203/2022

ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIFESTYLE STORE - Opp.Party(s)

19 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No. 203/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sharma R/o 104, Jamna Apartment, Sector 9, Rohini, New Delhi-110085	Complainant
	Versus
1.               2.	Lifestyle Store Through its Manager, City Centre, Plot No. 1-B-3, Sector 10, Rohini, New Delhi-110085   Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. Through its Directors/Managing Directors, Sigma Soft Tech Park, 7th& 8th Floor, Delta Tower, 7 Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru 560066 Karnataka	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:  JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: DATE OF ORDER:

10.01.18 09.08.23 19.10.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that on 16.04.17 Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and decided to purchase bed sheet set and representative of Opposite Party No.1 represented that bed sheet namely Marlin 9 Piece Bed in a Bag is available at discounted rate of flat 25 % off on the MRP of Rs. 3,499/- and consist of 9 items. The Complainant stated that when discounted 9 piece of bed sheet was billed vide bill no. 104, transaction no. 4412 on 16.04.17, the Complainant was shocked by bill amount of Rs. 2,755/- against assured amount of Rs. 2,624/- by representative of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant stated that when he enquired about the difference in amount the Opposite Party No.1 representative represented that the bill amount included VAT therefore Complainant informed representative of Opposite Party No.1 that MRP on each and every product is inclusive/consisting of VAT or all or/and any type of taxes if any which is charged upon the Retail Selling Price. The Complainant stated that he had also informed about case titled M/s Aero Club (woodland) Vs. Rakesh Sharma’ in Revision Petition no. 3477 of 2016, decided on 04.01.17. The Complainant stated that no heed was paid to the information provided by Complainant and when Complainant asked for complaint book the manager refused to provide the same and gave assurance that he will be contacted soon after discussing with his seniors. However till date neither the Opposite Party No.1 nor Opposite Party No.2 have reverted back to the Complainant. On 14.07.17 Complainant had sent legal notice to Opposite Party through speed post on 16.12.16.  The Opposite Party sent their reply to said legal notice on 22.08.17 The Complainant also represented the calculation chart for wrong and illegal deductions done by Opposite Party. The Complainant had also cited some citations to prove his grievance. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 131/- with interest of       18 % against the illegal charge of addition of VAT of 5 % and Rs. 90,000/- for mental agony. He further prayed for Rs. 55,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2.  The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party stated that as per its standard policy has displayed a declaration/ in store displays at various noticeable places in its each and every store clearly stating that VAT will be charged extra after discount on MRP. The total cash collected from Complainant is less than the MRP value mentioned on the price tag, which makes it abundantly clear that the Opposite Party has not charged any amount above the MRP mentioned on the product purchased. The Opposite Party denied that there was assured sum of Rs.2,624/-. The Opposite Party stated that bill amount is 2,755/- which includes VAT of Rs. 131/- @ 5 % and Opposite Party gave discount of 25 % on product purchased. Further, the Opposite Party stated that there is no cause of action has arisen against the Opposite Party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the objection raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Sh. Ritesh Sharma, Authorized Signatory of Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 have been supported.

Arguments and Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that on 16.04.17 he has purchased bed sheets etc. from Opposite Party No.1. His case is that the MRP of the said product was Rs. 3,499/- and there was a discount of 25 % on its purchase. His case is that after 25 % discount on the same, the value of the product comes out Rs. 2,624/- whereas he was charged Rs. 2,755/-. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that it is a matter of standard policy that VAT is to be charged extra after discount on MRP. The final sale value of the product was below MRP. It is the case of the Opposite Party that as per the communication displayed by the Opposite Party VAT was charged extra on the selling price.  It is the case of the Opposite Party that no extra amount was charged from the Complainant.
7. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that Complainant had purchased bed sheets etc. from the Opposite Party No.1. It is also admitted that the MRP of the said goods/product was Rs. 3,499/-. It is also admitted that there was a discount of 25 % on the goods purchased by the Complainant. The case of the Opposite Party is that VAT was to be charged after discount on the MRP and this was communicated to the Complainant and was also displayed in the store in the form of declaration. The Opposite Party did not lead any cogent evidence to show that this fact of charging the VAT after discount on the MRP was communicated to the Complainant. The Opposite Party did not lead any cogent evidence to show that this was displayed in the store. Therefore, the defence raised by the Opposite Party cannot be believed. The Complainant has also relied upon a judgment  dated 04.01.17 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in revision petition no. 3477 of 2016. The said judgment also supports the case of the Complainant. As per the said judgment, the stand of the Opposite Party tantamount to unfair trade practices. Therefore, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay jointly and severally the excess amount of Rs. 131/- charged from the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay jointly and severally Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation expenses to the Complainant  with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
8. Order announced on 19.10.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President