| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.162 of 13-06-2017 Decided on 10-12-2019 Mr.Ajay Singla S/o Abhey Singla R/o Civil Lines, Bathinda ........Complainant Versus 1.M/s Adidas Sports, Shop No.5, Sidhu Shopping Complex, NH-64, Bathinda- Barnala Highway, Bathinda, through its Proprietor, Manager/Incharge. 2.Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Sector 32, Industrial Area, Plot No.53, Gurgaon/Gurugram, Haryana-122001, through its Managing Director/Chairman/Incharge. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Manisha, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Mohit Bansal, Advocate. For opposite parties: Sh.Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Mr.Ajay Singla (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/s Adidas Sports and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on 10.6.2017, he alongwith his friend visited the store of opposite party No.2 and factory outlet of opposite party No.1 to purchase clothes and shoes. Opposite party No.1 was selling these articles at discounted price during the sale period. Actual price of the products was written as Rs.2999/- for Sandal each, T-Shirt Rs.1199/-, Shorts Rs.1499/- and Rs.1799/- (inclusive of all taxes). Opposite parties in order to promote the sale of their products offered various discount on M.R.P. Opposite party No.1 offered discount 50% on purchase of two items, 60% on purchase of three items and 70% discount on purchase of four items. All discounts were on M.R.P on the purchased articles. It is alleged that the complainant purchased two pairs of the sandal/footwear for an amount of Rs.2999/- each and one T-shirt and two shorts of Rs.1199/-, Rs.1499/- and Rs.1799/-. All the prices of the articles were inclusive of all taxes. Opposite party No.1 demanded an amount of Rs.3487/- which included Rs.257.31/- as VAT @ 14.3% and Rs.81.62/- as VAT @ 6.05% and issued retail invoice/receipt No.SC1138 dated 10.6.2017 for Rs.3487/-. The complainant paid amount through credit card. It is further alleged that at the time of making the payment, the complainant noticed the invoice and pointed out that opposite party No.1 has charged extra VAT amount on the invoice. He asked the official of opposite party No.1 to waive off the extra VAT amount as MRP of all the products were inclusive of all the taxes i.e. VAT amount was already added in MRP. He further raised protest against the payment with regard to VAT amount only and asked the officials of opposite party No.1 to recheck the bill in their system, but they proclaimed that they have charged extra as per the instruction of company i.e. opposite party No.2. The details of the invoice generated by the store mentioned that five articles are purchased worth Rs.3487/- whereas opposite party No.1 at the end bifurcated the bill mentioning the base amount as Rs.3148.50/- and VAT amount as Rs.338.93/- and mentioned at the end of the bill that there is 'VAT Extra On The Discounted Item'. The complainant also asked for any notification or regulation issued by the any of the taxation authorities for charging extra VAT, but to no response. It is further alleged that opposite parties charged the excess amount of Rs.338.93/- illegally imposed under the head of VAT and this amount was paid under protest by the complainant. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. For these sufferings, he has claimed refund of Rs.499.76/- with interest and Rs.70,000/- towards harassment and mental agony in addition to litigation cost to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, previously, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Subsequently, opposite party No.2 joined the case proceedings on 3.7.2018. In the written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not 'consumer' as defined by Section 2(1) (d) of 'Act'. The complaint is based on vague, misconceived notions and baseless assumptions of law. The complainant has no cause-of-action to file complaint. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. It has been only filed with malafide intention. The issue discounted price of charging VAT is already subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.8849 of 2017 title M/s Aero Club (Woodland) Vs. Rakesh Sharma. Decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is pending. It be adjourned sine-die. Thereafter opposite party No.1 made further preliminary submissions that Adisports India Pvt. Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at shop No.5 Sidhu Shopping Complex, NE-64, Bathinda- Barnala Highway. Opposite party No.1 is carrying on the business of sale, distribution and marketing of Adidas brands sports and lifestyle goods. The complainant approached this Forum with unclean hands and is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. He has failed to disclose the fact that the invitation to offer discount alongwith terms and conditions, on which the consumers could avail the discount, offers were prominently displayed by opposite party No.1 at its website and in and around the shop/showroom. The averments made by the complainant in the complaint do not constitute unfair trade practice' or not even the violation of any provisions under 'Act'. The complainant was fully aware of terms and conditions before purchase. After knowing about the discount offer and after being fully aware of the terms and conditions on which the discount offer could be availed, thereafter the goods were sold to the complainant, thereby completing the chain of events resultantly forming a contract between the complainant and opposite party No.1. Now, the complainant is trying to renege from the contract, which was duly entered upon by him with opposite party No.1. The complaint is merely an afterthought and with the intention of harassing opposite parties. On merits, opposite party No.1 has reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary objections and submissions and detailed above. It is also asserted that VAT was charged as per law. Even otherwise, as per law, the discounts are not of tax as it is only the state government to exempt or reduce the tax. The tax liability is leviable on the sale price of the good. The complainant is not entitled for any refund on account of VAT charged on the purchase made by him. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 12.6.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopies of price tag, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C6); photocopies of payment receipt, (Ex.C7 and Ex.C8) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Vivek Tyagi dated 30.10.2018, (Ex.OP1/1); affidavit of Rinku Kaushal dated 13.12.2018, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of authority letter, (Ex.OP1/3) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. To support these submissions, learned counsel for complainant has cited decision of Hon'ble State Commission, U.T Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, Decided on 1.9.2015 in case Shoppers Stop and Others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions and gone through the case law cited by learned counsel for complainant. Admittedly, opposite parties have charged VAT extra. The price tags, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C4) reveals that MRP was inclusive of all taxes. Opposite party No.1 has although claimed that tax is not exempted on discounted bills, but opposite parties have not produced any notification or rules and regulations to support their contention when MRP included all taxes. In the absesnce of notification or rules and regulations, opposite parties are not entitled to claim any tax or VAT extra. In case of Shoppers Stop (Supra), State Commission, U.T Chandigarh has held that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is inclusive of all taxes, then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. This observation is fully applicable to the case in hand. Therefore, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice stands proved. Now, question is regarding compensation. The complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.70,000/- for mental agony and harassment etc. Legal position regarding amount of compensation has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, National Commission and State Commissions in number of authorities. In latest judgment titled as Chief Administrative Huda & Anr. Vs. Shakuntla Devi, I 2017 (CPJ) SC in Paragraph No.12 of this judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under:- “12) The sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof of loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of opposite party. Once the said conditions are satisfied, the Consumer Forum would have to decide the quantum of compensation to which the consumer is entitled. There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury. There is a duty cast on the Consumer Forum to take into account all relevant factors for arriving at the compensation to be paid.” In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- (including excess amount charged from the complainant) as cost and compensation against opposite parties. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 10-12-2019 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Manisha) Member
| |
