DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 142 of 26.4.2017
Decided on: 20.7.2017
Jaswinder Singh |S/o Sh.Ishar Singh, aged 35 yrs., r/o Bhankhar Road, Sanour.
…......................Complainant
Versus
M/s COBB Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.SCO-14, Bhupindra Nagar Road, Patiala through its Store Manager/Owner/Partner/Proprietor.
…........................opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Amit Kumar Bedi,Advocate,counsel for complainant.
Opposite party exparte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Jaswinder Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for the following reliefs
- To refund the amount of Rs.39.29 charged as Vat;
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment
- To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and
- To grant any other relief,which this Forum may deem fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that during Sale on 27.3.2017, the O.P. offered 50% discount on Apparels at its shop premises .Persuaded from the discount offered by the OP, the complainant purchased one tunic full SL-Girls, having item description as 0112632102, Article No.GTNMA135 from the OP with M.R.P.(Maximum Retail price) of Rs.1299/-.On reaching at home, he noticed that VAT to the tune of Rs.39.29 was charged from him on the discounted price of Rs.649.50, thereby the OP charged Rs.689/- from him. The OP not only charged the VAT on the M.R.P of the product but has also charged the same on higher rate. He approached the OP and requested for the refund of the amount charged extra on account of Vat but they refused to do so. The charging of VAT from him over and above the offered discount of 50% especially when the price tag mentioned that M.R.P. was inclusive of all taxes, not only amounted to deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the OP which caused mental agony and physical harassment to him.
3. On being put to notice, the OP failed to appear despite service and was this proceeded against exparte.
4. In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. From the copy of bill, Ex.C1, it is evident that the complainant made the purchase from the OP. In the said bill, the M.R.P of the items is mentioned as Rs.1299/-.After giving 50% discount, the amount has been shown as 649.50. But the OP charged Rs.689/- after having added Rs.39.29 on account of Vat, from the complainant. From the price tag, Ex.C3, it is also evident that the maximum retail price, (hereinafter referred to be as M.R.P.) of the purchased items in question, was Rs.1299/-.In the said tag , it is specifically mentioned that M.R.P. is inclusive of all taxes. By charging VAT on the discounted amount, the O.P. is not only deficient in service but has also indulged in to unfair trade practice and is thus liable to refund the extra amount, charged from the complainant. Not only this, it is also liable to pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant alongwith 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 VAT 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 O.P. in the following manner:
- To refund to the complainant Rs.39.29, charged extra on account of Vat.
- To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation, for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.5,000/-towards costs of litigation
The O.P. is 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: 20.7.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
