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

                                    Consumer Complaint No.128 of 2017

                                               Date of institution:  15.02.2017                                         Date of decision   :  13.07.2017

Vaibhav Mittal son of Surinder Mittal, resident of House No.402, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                ….Complainant                                                 Versus

1.     M/s. VIOM Enterprises, G-15, COSMO Plaza, Zirakpur, Punjab 140603 through its Authorised representative.

2.     M/s. PUMA Sports India Private Limited, Registered Office, No.509, CMH Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560038 through its Managing Director.

                                                                …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member         

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Aman Singla, counsel for the complainant.

                OPs ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Vaibhav Mittal has filed the present 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 one T-Shirt from OP No.1 vide bill dated 12.02.2017. The MRP of the T-Shirt was Rs.1099.00. The OPs offered 40% discount on the MRP of the product. However, in the bill the OPs had charged VAT @ 6.05% on the discounted price despite  the fact that on the tag of the T-shirt it was clearly  written that the MRP inclusive of all taxes.  The complainant was informed by OP No.1 that levying of such tax is legal. Left with no other alternative, the complainant had to pay the said additional amount of tax to OP No.1 under protest. Thus, charging of VAT on the discounted price is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund him Rs.39.89  alongwith interest @ 18% per annum; to pay him Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment  and   Rs.11,000/- as  litigation expenses.

3.             As per the tracking report retrieved from the site of India Post, notices were delivered to OPs on 14.03.2017 and 20.03.2017. However, none appeared for them  and accordingly both the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.04.2017.

4              In order to prove the case, the learned counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant  Ex.CW-1/1; copies of bill Ex.C-1; Tag Ex.C-2; receipt Ex.C-3 and calculation sheet Ex.C-4.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the MRP of the products was Rs.1099.00 on which 40% discount was offered by the OPs. However, the OPs after giving discount on MRP again charged VAT from the complainant which is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on its part.

6.             After hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant, and going through the pleadings, evidence produced and written arguments, we find that there is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant. It is well established from the tag Ex.C-2 that the MRP of the T-shirt was Rs.1099.00.  The OPs had offered discount of 40% on the MRP.  However, the OPs have again charged VAT @ 6.05% to the tune of Rs.39.89 on the discounted price. 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 also 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.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the aforestated 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 OPs to refund to the complainant Rs.39.89 (Rs. Thirty nine and paise eighty nine only) i.e. excess charges of VAT on the T-shirt and to pay him a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                The OPs are also directed to comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of order till its realization

                The arguments on the complaint were heard 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: 13.07.2017    

                                        (A.P.S.Rajput)                                          President

 (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member