Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/129/2017

ShitiDutt - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s College Shoes - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

22 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/129/2017
Date of Institution	:	09/02/2017
Date of Decision	:	22/09/2017

 

Shiti Dutt w/o Sh. Gautam Dutt, resident of H.No.2163, Sector 21/C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s College Shoes, S.C.O 30, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorised Signatory.

2.     Aero Club, G-28-29, DDL Industrial Area, Selaqui, Dehradun, Uttrakhand-248197 through its Proprietor/ Manager/Authorised Signatory.

3.     Aero Club, C-16, Phase-II, Noida (U.P)-201305 through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorised Signatory.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                               

       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Vikas Verma, Area Sales Executive for OPs.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that after going through large advertisement of sale, given by OP-1 in the month of December 2016, the complainant went to the showroom of OP-1 on 27.12.2012 and purchased one ladies sweat shirt and one pair of ladies bally (footwear) having MRP of Rs.4,495/- and Rs.3,495/- respectively.  The OPs offered discount of 40% and 50% respectively on the said products, but, when the complainant was handed over the physical copy of retail invoice, VAT of Rs.353.53 was illegally charged on the discounted price. The complainant objected to the same, but, to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         The OPs in their written reply have not disputed the factual matrix of the case. However, it has been averred that the complainant has failed to understand the concept of MRP and discount offered.  It has been stated that on a plain reading of the terms of sale, as advertised and displayed, it is clear that the complainant has misunderstood the display board and advertisement which clearly made public know that 40% to 60% discount is only for allowing the reduction, but, it is subject to payment of VAT.  It has been denied that the OPs have charged VAT twice on the same product or that they sold the goods on price higher than the MRP.   It has been contended that the OPs have rightly charged VAT as per the charging section of the state VAT Act and have paid the tax to the State. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the complainant in person and the Area Sales Executive for OPs.
5.         From a perusal of the record and tags (Annexure C-2), it becomes evident that the complainant did purchase two articles namely one ladies sweat shirt and one pair of ladies bally (footwear) having MRP of Rs.4,495/- and Rs.3,495/- respectively. Further, it is evident from the invoice dated 27.12.2016 (Annexure C-1) that after giving discount on the said products, the total amount payable came to Rs.4,445.65 only, but, the OPs illegally charged an amount of Rs.4,797.65 from the complainant by adding Rs.353.35 as VAT. The OPs have failed to substantiate their act either through some Govt. notification or case law. When MRP included all the taxes, charging of VAT on the discounted price would amount to indulging in unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
6.      The simple question for determination in the present case is whether MRP includes all taxes, including VAT, and whether, after discount, VAT can be charged or not? A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 1.9.2015 in case titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Versus Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others”, wherein it has been held that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. In another decision in Appeal No.61 of 2016, decided on 18.02.2016, in case titled as “Benetton India Private Limited Vs. Ravinderjit Singh”, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant (Benetton India Pvt. Limited) has held that if it is clearly mentioned as MRP inclusive of all taxes, charging of extra VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice. The ratio of above stated pronouncements is squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, the act of the OPs in charging VAT on the discounted price clearly proves deficiency in service on their part.  As such, the OPs are liable to refund the excess amount of VAT besides compensation for mental agony, physical pain and litigation expenses to the complainant.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  The OPs are directed as under :-

(i)     To refund to the complainant Rs.353.35 (say Rs.354/-) being the amount of VAT wrongly charged;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.

8.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
22/09/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member