Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/195

Brig.B.s.Gill - Complainant(s)

Versus

Moda elemerti - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 195 of 10.03.2016

Date of Decision            :   20.01.2017 

 

Brig. B.S.Gill, s/o S.Nachhatar Singh r/o #608, Sector 36-B, Chandigarh-160036.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

Moda Elementi, Opp. Saluja Store, Near Sita Ram Halwai, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/authorized signatory.

…Opposite party

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBMER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :          In person

For OP                           :          Sh.Harpreet Singh, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant purchased two shirts from OP on 15.01.2016 with item Codes Nos.890731502406 and 6555444047837 for Rs.1345/- and Rs.1295/- respectively inclusive of all taxes. OP offered discount of 40% on the merchandise at its shop. Complainant paid Rs.1680/- including Rs.95.83P as Value Added Tax (VAT) and 17 paise extra unaccounted, after being discounted, vide bill No.3457 dated 15.01.2016. Complainant wrongly charged VAT twice on the price after discount because price was inclusive of all taxes including VAT. Complaint about this extra charging of VAT on discount price was made immediately with request to refund the amount of Rs.95,83P + 17 P charged extra, but OP refused to refund the amount. Complainant visited the shop of OP again on 17 and 31.01.2016 and was unable to convince the sales manager Mr.Prem Bahadur that MRP included all taxes. Charging of extra VAT is alleged to be deficiency in service and as such, complaint filed for issuing direction to OP to refund the charged VAT amount of Rs.95.83P and extra amount of 17 paise. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OP, it is claimed that Moda Elementi is only a brand name because manufacturer is M/s Turbo Tools Pvt. Ltd. (Clothing Division). Complainant alleged to have placed on record the forged bill No.3457 dated 15.01.2016 by changing some of its clauses. In fact, in bill No.3457, it has been mentioned at the bottom that MRP prices inclusive of all taxes. However, the complainant has tampered this clause and written “Prices are inclusive of all taxes”. This has been done by the complainant for just undue advantage over the OP. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Rejoinder by way of affidavit even filed by the complainant.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and then closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Inder Mohan Singh, Director of M/s Turbo Tools Pvt. Ltd along with document Ex.R1 and then closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

7.                Bill Ex.C1 has been produced by the complainant for proving that net bill amount after discount was of Rs.1680/-. It is clear that Rs.95.83P was charged as extra amount of VAT on the purchased two shirts of price of Rs.1345/- and Rs.1295/-. In bill Ex.C1, it is specifically mentioned that prices are inclusive of all taxes. As price of Rs.1345/- and Rs.1245/- were inclusive of all taxes and as such, it is contended that charging of VAT of Rs.95.83P on amount of Rs.1680/- is an unfair trade practice. Whether or not bill Ex.C1 is forged one, nothing can be commented by this Forum because question of forgery can be decided only by the Court of competent of Civil jurisdiction. In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down in case District Transport Officer vs. Amita Goyal-2015(4)CLT-349(N.C.), which provides that when issue involved in Consumer complaint relates to forgery, fraud or cheating etc., then matter requires to be adjudicated by the Civil Court or Criminal Court because the said controversy can be resolved after adduction of elaborate evidence. Proceedings before the Consumer Forum are summary in nature and question of tampering and forgery cannot be gone into in the summary proceedings.

8.                After having comparison of bill Ex.C1 and Ex.R1, it is made out that the price of shirts mentioned as Rs.1345/- and Rs.1295/- and total of the same worked out at Rs.2640/- in both bills. Discount of Rs.1056/- also worked out in both these bills and net bill amount determined at Rs.1680/- both in Ex.R1 and Ex.C1. Difference in Ex.C1 and Ex.R1 is only to the extent as to whether the prices are inclusive of all taxes or MRP prices are inclusive of all taxes. Use of word price and MRP in the bills Ex.C1 and Ex.R1 does not make much difference because prices of the shirts mentioned in Ex.C1 and Ex.R1 is the same. Discount of Rs.1056/- was given and thereafter, VAT of Rs.95.83P was charged. So, it is not a case, in which, VAT charged twice. So, it is obvious that tag price of both shirts was Rs.2640/-, but charged price was Rs.1680/-. It is not mentioned by any of the parties as to at what rate the VAT was charged or as to what was MRP mentioned on shirts. In absence of disclosure of rate of charged VAT, it is not possible to find as to whether Rs.95.83P was charged on Rs.2640/- or Rs.1680/-. Being so, contents of complaint and of produced evidence remain vague. As and when relief claimed on vague allegation, then complainant concerned not entitled to any relief and as such, complaint merits dismissal, particularly when charging of VAT twice is not established and nor it is established as to what amount of VAT actually charged.

9.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

         

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

                                                Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum                                                              Dated:20.01.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.