DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.187 of 24.5.2017
Decided on: 1.11.2017
Daljit Kumar s/o Hardev Kumar, aged 27 yrs. r/o Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura and District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
M/s Yougal Sons Fashions Pvt.Ltd., Shop No.2, Bhupindra 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 .
Sh.Charanjit Kumar Manager, of the opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Complainant Sh.Daljit Kumar 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.).
-
-
-
The authorized representative of the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his sworn affidavit and closed the evidence.
-
6. From the invoice, Ex.C1, it is evident that the OP mentioned the M.R.P. of the item, purchased by the complainant as Rs.2365/- .After giving discount @ 40% i.e. Rs.946/-, the payable amount has come to Rs.1419/-. But the OP after having added Rs.78.05 as Vat and Rs.7.80 as surcharge, has raised the bill for an amount of Rs.1505/-. 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 has also indulged in to unfair trade practice. The OP is thus not only liable to refund the amount charged on account of Vat but is 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 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 Rs.78/- charged on account of vat , to the complainant.
- 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:1 .11.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
