DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.502 of 2016 Date of institution: 22.08.2016 Date of decision : 14.03.2017
Nidhi Vig wife of Sh. Naveen Vig, resident of House No.5017/1, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh 160 101.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Adi Sports India Pvt. Limited, GF 001, FF 40-41-42-43-44, Cosmo Plaza, NH 22 Zirakpur, District Mohali -140603 through its Show Room Manager/Owner.
2. M/s. Reebok India Company, 7th Floor, Unitech Commercial Tower II, Sector 45, Block-B, Greewood City, Gurgaon 122001 through its Managing Director/Owner.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Sections 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Shri Naveen Vig, authorised representative of the complainant.
OPs Ex-parte.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Nidhi Vig has filed this complaint and appeared through her husband and authorised representative Naveen Vig against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The OPs are running a business of manufacturing and selling branded footwear namely Reebok and other related accessories of men, women and kids. The OPs offered 60% discounts on shoes. On 07.08.2016, the complainant purchased Reebook branded shoes at a maximum retail price of Rs.6598/- which was inclusive of all taxes, vide retail invoice dated 07.08.2016. The shoes were available at 60% discount but the OP charged an amount of Rs.377.41 as VAT on the discounted price. Thus, the OP have committed unfair trade price by charging VAT on the discounted price. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund her extra amount of VAT charged to the tune of Rs.377.41 with interest; to pay her Rs.50,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
3. As per the tracking report retrieved from the site of India Post, the notice was delivered to it on 15.10.2016 but none appeared for them. Thus, the OPs were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.11.2016.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; bill Ex.C-1; MRP mentioned on the box Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 and authority letter Ex.C-4.
5. The authorised representative of the complainant has argued that Ex. C-2 and Ex.C-3 shows that the prices of the shoes were inclusive of all taxes. However, the OPs at the time of issuance of retail invoice again charged VAT @ 14.3% on the discounted price and this act on the part of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
6. After hearing the authorised representative of the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence and the oral submissions, it is established from the material placed on record i.e. documents Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 that the prices of the shoes were inclusive of all taxes. However, the OPs again charged VAT @ 14.3% while issuing invoice. In our view when MRP is inclusive of all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. Here we are fortified by the similar view taken by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No.3723 of 2011 titled as The Branch Manager M/s. Shirt Palace Branch Black Bird Showroom Vs. Chandru H.C. decided on 16.01.2014. A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015 decided on 01.09.2015 in case titled as Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and others. An ample opportunity was given to the OP to appear in this Forum to contest the complaint but they chose not to appear which amounts to admission of the averments of the complaint and that the OPs do not want to say anything in this regard.
7. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the afore stated case law, we find that charging of VAT on the discounted price by the OPs is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence we direct the OP to refund to the complainant Rs.377.41 (Rs. Three hundred seventy seven and paise forty one only) i.e. excess charges of VAT and to pay her a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.
The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decision till actual payment.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 06.03.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 14.03.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput) President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
