DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.59 of 16.02.2016
Decided on: 23.02.2017
Jasleen Kaur W/o Sh.Sukhjinder Singh R/o H.No.74, Nattan Street, Sheran Wala Gate, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Spykar Lifestyles C/o New Osho Casuals, Near Sahni Bakery, 22 No. Phatak, through its Manager.
2. M/s Spykar Lifestyles Pvt.Ltgd., 271, Business Park, Ist Floor, VN Road, Goregaon, Mumbai 400063, through its Manager
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Sukhjinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Harinder Shukla,Advocate, counsel for O.Ps.No.1&2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Smt. Jasleen Kaur has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice and causing mental agony, mal practice, harassment, humiliation and inconvenience
- To pay Rs.21,000/- as costs of litigation expenses
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 13.1.2016 she purchased one Spykar Jeans bearing code No.8901241351932 Renegade- W15-04 RN-W-04 having the MRP of Rs.2599/-(inclusive of all taxes) with 30% discount on the same, from Op No.1.She noticed that after giving the discount of 30% on MRP ( which is already inclusive of all taxes and Vat), the O.Ps. charged Rs.1929/- by adding 6.05% vat on the discounted price. The actual price of the product after giving the discount of 30% should be Rs.1819/- but the OPs charged Rs.110.07 extra on account of Vat. She went to OP no.1 and expressed her grief but OP no.1 refused to give the refund. She also got served a legal notice dated 25.1.2016 upon the O.Ps but to no effect. The act and conduct of OPs shows unfair trade practice and mal practice on their part.
3. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint is bad for want of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against them. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased one Jeans Model bearing Code No.8901241351932 Renegade- W15-04 RN-W-04 on 13.1.2016 from Op No.1 with the MRP of Rs.2599/-. It is submitted that as per the instructions of the sale tax department/Govt., the Vat is to be charged at actual sale price by the seller. It is denied that the complainant was offered 30% discount on the product. It is also denied that OP No.1 charged Rs.110.07 extra @ 6.05% on account of Vat. It is submitted that as per the instructions of the Govt. the Vat was charged on the discounted price, which is to be deposited with the Govt.and not for them. The complainant never approached them for the refund of any money. They have not indulged in unfair trade practice. The OPs denied all other averments made in the complaint and have prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA her sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C5 and her counsel closed the evidence.
In contrary, the ld.counsel for the O.Ps. tendered in evidence Ex.OPA sworn affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Bhardwaj, Prop. of Spykar Life Style and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. From the invoice dated 13.1.2016, Ex.C2,which was duly issued by OP No.1 for the purchase of Spykar jeans by the complainant, it is evident that the MRP of the jeans in question was Rs.2599/- and after deducting Rs.779.70( discount 30%) , the price of the same comes to Rs.1819.30. But the OP no.1 after adding Rs.110.07 as tax had raised the bill for a sum of Rs.1929.37. In the tag Ex.C1, the MRP of jeans in question has been mentioned as Rs.2599/-( inclusive of all taxes). Once on the tag , it is categorically mentioned that MRP is inclusive of all taxes, then charging of extra vat or tax, is certainly against the trade practice and the O.Ps. are liable to refund the extra amount charged from the complainant. They are also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment 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 failing short of “Flat 40% on the MRP would amount to unfair trade practice, as defined in the Act”.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.Ps. in the following manner:
- To refund Rs.110.07 being charged as Vat.
- To pay Rs.3000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.2,000/-towards costs of litigation
The O.Ps are further directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the 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:23.02.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
