DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  PATIALA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 109 of 23/03/2018   

   Decided on: 19/12/2018

 

Navdeep Singla S/o Sh. B. R. Singla, aged 64 years, R/o H. No.30-C, Model Town,  Patiala

    .…...Complainant

Versus

 

1. M/s Cantabil (International Clothing) Retail India Limited, through its Store Manager, Shop No.10, Badungar, Bhupindra Road, Patiala.

2. M/s Cantabil (International Clothing) Retail India Limited, through its M.D./ Chairman, available at Registered office, B-16, Lawrence Road, Indus Area,  Delhi-110035. 

          ……Opposite Parties 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ARGUED BY:

 

Sh. Amit Kumar Bedi Adv. counsel for the complainant.   

Opposite party ex-parte.  

 

 ORDER

                                   NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one Shirt from OP No.1 on discount and paid a sum of Rs.1060/- for the same. The MRP/ unit price of the product was Rs.1999/-. After receiving the product, while going through the tax Invoice, the complainant was shocked to notice that the OP had charged VAT @ 6.05%, amounting to Rs.60.47P on the discounted price of Rs.999.50P, which clearly means that the complainant paid over and above the discounted price. Thus the complainant was made to pay the Tax twice. After a few days, the complainant tried to contact the OP to point out this fact and tell that the MRP is inclusive of all taxes, but to no use. The OPs had nowhere mentioned that the discounted price is without tax. Such an act on the part of the Ops amounted to unfair trade practice on their part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protect Act (for short the Act) 1986.

2. On notice, OPs did not appear despite due service, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte. 

3. In support of the complaint, ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant along with documents Ex.C-1 original tax/retail Invoice and closed the evidence. 

4. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and also gone through the evidence on record. 

5. Ex.C-1 is the Invoice whereby the complainant purchased one Shirt, whose MRP was Rs.1999.50P and after discount of Rs.999.50 i.e. 50%, the net payable amount came out to be Rs.999.50P, but the OP No.1 charged VAT @ 6.05% which came out to Rs.60.47P on the discounted price and the complainant was made to pay a sum of Rs.1060/-.

6. The simple question for determination in the present case is whether MRP includes all the taxes, including VAT and whether VAT can be charged or not?  It may be stated that as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2014, no extra amount over and above the M.R.P., printed on the goods could be charged, even the same has been sold on discount, as M.R.P. has already been included all taxes levied on the goods. Since the OP has charged VAT on the discounted price of the product, from the complainant, in violation of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2014, therefore, it   has not only committed deficiency in service but also indulged in to  unfair trade practice. The OP is thus liable to refund the amount charged on account of Vat and also  liable to  compensate the complainant for causing  mental agony and physical harassment. It is also liable to pay litigation expenses. In the case titled as M/s Aeroclub (woodland) Versus Rakesh Sharma, Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016,  decided on 04 Jan 2017, the Hon’ble National Commission has already held that  “In our opinion, therefore, the defence of the Petitioners that they had charged GST as per law is of no avail in so far as the issue at hand, viz. misleading advertisement, resulting in unfair trade practice, is concerned. We are in complete agreement with the Fora below that any discount falling short of “Flat 40% on the MRP would amount to unfair trade practice, as defined in the Act”. 

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:

i. To refund Rs.60.47P rounded off Rs.60/- charged on account of VAT,  to the complainant. 

ii. To pay Rs.3000/-as compensation, for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.  

iii. To pay Rs.1000/- as compensation for litigation expenses

        The OPs are further directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.    

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 19/12/2018 

 

 

           KANWALJEET SINGH                     NEELAM  GUPTA

                           MEMBER                MEMBER