DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                    Consumer Complaint No.136 of 2016

                                               Date of institution:  08.03.2016                                                Date of decision   :  13.07.2017

Rajvinder Kaur wife of Barinder Deep Singh, resident of Flat No.C-4-S, Unicity, Near Hotel Mittaso, Zirakpur 140603.

                                                                ….Complainant                                                 Versus

1.     M/s. Aero Club (Woodland Store), SCF 82, Phase-7, Mohali through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorized signatory.

2.     M/s. Aero Club Pvt. Ltd. (Head Office) (Woodland India) 2168, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, Opp. Post Office, New Delhi 110005 through its Manager/Authorised signatory. 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member         

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Barinder Deep Singh, authorised representative of the complainant.

                Shri Sunil Kang, Sr. Manager on behalf of the OPs.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Rajvinder Kaur has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant purchased a pair of sandals and a pair of slippers from the OPs vide bill dated 07.02.2016 for personal use. The MRP of these products was Rs.2395.00 and Rs.1795.00 respectively. The OPs offered 40% discount on the MRP of these products. After discount, the OPs charged Rs.1436.51 and Rs.1076.99 respectively for these products.  On the discounted prices, the OPs charged Rs.205.49 and Rs.154.01 respectively as VAT @ 14.30%  and the prices of the sandals and slippers after adding VAT came to be Rs.1642.00 and Rs.1231.00 respectively.  The complainant requested the OPs not to charge VAT on the discounted price as the MRP includes VAT. However, the OPs have paid no heed to the request of the complainant and the complainant was compelled to pay these products by paying Rs.1642.00 and Rs.1231.00 respectively. Thus, charging of VAT on the discounted price is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund her Rs.359.00 (Rs.249.01 + 154.01) charged as VAT on the discounted items; to pay her Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment  and   Rs.15,000/- as  litigation expenses alongwith 18% per annum interest.

3.             The complaint has been contested by the OPs by filing reply in which it has been pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint is abuse of process of law and that the goods sold by the OPs are for a price as per the discount scheme and they have not charged any amount more than the disclosed scheme within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has been failed to show any unfair trade practice of overcharging than the displayed price. The moment the purchaser availed the scheme, he is out from the declaration of MRP which serves only the basis for calculation of sale consideration but it is subject to condition of payment of VAT. Maximum retail price inclusive of all taxes and it includes the payment of VAT out of sale price.  The complainant was explained by the OPs with regard to VAT law as applicable and she was satisfied. After understanding the scheme the complainant agreed and opted to buy the goods.  Thus, denying any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

4              In order to prove the case, the authorised representative tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant  Ex.CW-1/1; copies of bill Ex.C-1; authority letter Ex.C-2; order of the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum UT Chandigarh Mark-A. In rebuttal, Sunil Kang, Sr. Manager of the OPs tendered his affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and terms and conditions Ex.OP-1.

5.             The authorised representative of the complainant has argued that the MRP of the products was Rs.2395.00 and Rs.1795.00 respectively on which 40% discount was offered by the OPs. However, the OPs after giving discount on MRP again charged VAT from the complainant which is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on its part.

6.             On the other hand, Sr. Manager of the OPs has argued that the VAT on the discounted price has rightly been charged as it was clearly mentioned in the advertisement Ex.OP-1 that the VAT will be extra.  Thus, there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

7.             After hearing the authorised representative of the complainant and Sr. Manager of the OPs and going through the pleadings, evidence and the oral arguments, we find that there is force in the submissions of the authorised representative of the complainant. It is well established from the invoice Ex.C-1 that the MRP of the sandals and slippers was Rs.2395.00 and Rs.1795.00 respectively.  The OPs had offered discount of 40% on the MRP.  However, the OPs has again charged VAT @ 6.05% to the tune of Rs.205.49 and Rs.154.01 on the discounted price. In our view when MRP is inclusive of all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. Here we are fortified by the similar view taken by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No.3723 of 2011 titled as The Branch Manager M/s. Shirt Palace Branch Black Bird Showroom Vs. Chandru H.C. decided on 16.01.2014. A similar question also arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015 decided on 01.09.2015 in case titled as Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and others.

8.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the aforestated case law, we find that charging of VAT on the discounted price by the OPs is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.   Hence we direct the OPs to refund to the complainant Rs.359.50 (Rs. Three hundred fifty nine and paise fifty only) i.e. excess charges of VAT on both the items and to pay her a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                The OPs are also directed to comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of order till its realization

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 13.07.2017    

                                        (A.P.S.Rajput)                                          President

 (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member