DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                      Consumer Complaint No.484 of 2016                                                   Date of institution: 16.08.2016                                                  Date of decision   :  20.03.2017

Trilochan Singh son of Late Shangara Singh resident of Kothi No.941, Phase-XI, Mohali.

                                     ……..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, Zirakpur through its Proprietor/ Manager/Authorised Signatory.

2.     M/s. Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Head Office), Plot No.93, Industrial Area, Sector 32, Gurgaon through its Manager/Authorised signatory.

                                                               ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12  of

 Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Complainant in person.

                OP No.1 exparte.

                OP No.2 given up on 06.12.2016

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Trilochan Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant purchased pair of ladies shoes for his wife and one men’s cap from OP No.1 vide bill dated 06.07.2016.  The maximum retail price of the ladies shoes was Rs.6,099/- and men’s cap was Rs.799/- which were inclusive of all taxes.  OP No.1 offered discount of 40% and 30% respectively on these items.  After discount the prices of the items was charged by OP No.1 at Rs.3659.40 and Rs.559.30 respectively.  However, on the discounted prices, OP No.1 charged VAT to the tune of Rs.558.00 @ 14.3% and 6.05% respectively thereby total amount of Rs.4776.00 was charged by the OP No.1. Thus, the OPs have committed unfair trade price by charging VAT on the discounted price.  Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund him extra amount of VAT charged to the tune of Rs.558.00;  to pay him Rs.50,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses and cost of Rs.15,000/-.

3.             As per the tracking report retrieved from the site of India Post, the notice was delivered to OP No.1 on 30.08.2016 but none appeared for it. Thus, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.10.2016.

4.             Notice sent to OP No.2 received back with the report of postal authorities ‘no information’. The complainant vide his statement dated 06.12.2016 stated that he does not claim any relief against OP No.2 and has given up the name of OP No.2 from the array of the OPs.

5.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copy of bill Ex.C-1 and order of Ld. DCF-II, UT Chandigarh Mark-A.

6.             The complainant has argued that bill and tag Ex. C-1 shows that the prices of the shoes and men’s cap were inclusive of all taxes. However, the OPs at the time of issuance of retail invoice again charged VAT @ 14.3% and 6.05% on the discounted price and this act on the part of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  

7.             After hearing the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence and the oral submissions, it is established from the material placed on record i.e.  document Ex.C-1 that the price of the shoe and cap was inclusive of all taxes. However, the OPs again charged VAT @ 14.3% and 6.05% 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 OP do not want to say anything in this regard.

8.             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 OP No.1 is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.   Hence we direct the OP No.1 to refund to the complainant Rs.558. (Rs. Five hundred fifty eight  only) i.e. excess charges of VAT and to pay him 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 OP No.1 is 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 14.03.2017 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: 20.03.2017

                                              (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                          President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member