STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Parvinder Kaur Grover w/o Jaswinder Pal Singh Grover r/o H.No.1544, Phase-3B-2, Mohali 160059.

                                                                ……Appellant

V e r s u s

M/s College Shoes (Franchise of Woodlands Products), SCO No.30, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh

                                              …….Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 31.01.2017 passed by  District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 986/2016.

BEFORE:       JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:        Mr.Jaswinder Pal Singh Grover, husband of the appellant.

                           Respondent ex parte.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                Appellant/Complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 31.01.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), vide which her complaint  was dismissed. 

2.              As per case of the complainant, on 13.8.2016, she alongwith her husband went to the showroom of OP/respondent and bought two pairs of ladies shoes against bill No.06CSH161706330(C-1). The bill was raised in the following manner ;-

It was her case that the salesman who had sold the above said products, told that on the  maximum retail price of the articles purchased VAT @ 12.5% shall be imposed. The said salesman and the person standing at the counter were confronted with the legal proposition that the  MRP includes all taxes and VAT cannot be imposed thereupon. When the employees present there failed to look into their grievance, under pressure, she had to pay the bill amount of Rs.7868/- which included price of the product purchased and VAT imposed thereupon. It was stated that by charging an amount of Rs.874.26 towards VAT, the OP has indulged into unfair trade practice and rendered deficient service. Stating above facts, consumer complaint bearing  No.986 of 2016 was filed on 30.11.2016.

3.         On its registration, notice was sent to the Opposite Party on 2.12.2016 for 17.1.2017. None appeared before the Forum on 17.1.2017 and by taking recourse of provision of Regulation 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Regulations,2005, OP was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. Arguments were heard. The matter was reserved for orders on the said date. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.1.2017 the complaint was dismissed by observing as under ;

“ After hearing the husband of the complainant, in person and going through the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter. The complainant has produced on record a copy of the Invoice of the items in question from which it cannot be ascertained that as to whether the MRP of the items in question is inclusive of all the taxes or not.  The complainant has not produced on record a copy of the price tag of the items in question to corroborate the fact that the price of the items in question is inclusive of all the taxes and that the OP has illegally charged VAT on the price. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove her case against the OP.”

4.         It was stated by the Forum that on perusal of the invoice dated 13.8.2016(C-1) it cannot be ascertained as to what was the maximum retail price of the product purchased. We have gone through the document placed on record and are of the opinion that the view taken by the Forum is not correct. An error has been committed. On reading of the document, it clearly comes out that price of the product purchased was specifically mentioned under the column mentioned for MRP. If it is so, it was not open to the OP to impose VAT thereupon. Rule-2 Clasue-(l) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules,2011 has defined the  concept of Maximum Retail Price as under;

“Maximum or Max. retail price….inclusive of all taxes or in the form MRP Rs……incl., of all taxes after taking into account the fraction of less than fifty paise to be rounded off to the preceding rupees and fraction of above 50 paise and up to 95 paise to the rounded off to fifty paise;

          It is specifically stated therein that the  MRP is inclusive of all taxes. It refers to the maximum price, a packaged product can be sold to a consumer.

 5.        As is evident from the document Annexure C-1 dated 13.8.2016, the product was purchased by the complainant against  the following MRP ;

6.           This Commission in a number of cases held that on the MRP, further VAT cannot be imposed. The said view of this Commission has been affirmed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi,  in Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 titled as Aero Club(Woodland) Versus Rakesh Sharma decided on 4.1.2017.                                                                                                                 

7.           In view of the facts mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the Forum was not justified in dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant.

8.          Accordingly Appeal is allowed. The order, under challenge, is set aside. Consequently, complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is also allowed and the OP/respondent is directed as under ;

1. To refund Rs.874.26p charged as VAT
2. To pay Rs.2000/- towards  physical harassment and mental agony   
3. To pay Rs.1000/- towards costs of litigation.

The amount awarded shall be paid within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, it will start getting interest @ 9% p.a.(simple) till such time the payment is made. 

9.           Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

10.     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

  01.05.2017