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

                                      Consumer Complaint No.501 of 2016                                                   Date of institution: 22.08.2016                                                  Date of decision   :  16.03.2017

Gurmeet Kaur wife of Gursharan Singh Kang, resident of H.No.49, Phase-IV, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab 160059.

                                     ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

M/s. Xerion Retail (P) Limited, Registered Office: Plot No.109, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon 122015, Haryana through its Managing Director/Authorised signatory/Chief Executive Officer.

                                                               ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Sections 12 of

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Complainant through her authorised representative.

                Opposite Party ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Gurmeet Kaur has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Thereafter the complainant submitted on 08.09.2016 authority letter in favour of her husband Shri Gursharan Singh Kang to pursue the present complaint before this Forum.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant on 08.07.2016 placed an online order on the site ‘Jabong.com’ for purchase of one pair of Air Zoom Vomero 11 Navy Blue Running Shoes from the OP by paying Rs.6753.92. The shoes were delivered to the complainant at her residence vide invoice dated 08.07.2016.   The Maximum Retail Price as printed on the box of the shoes was Rs.12,995/- which was inclusive of all taxes.  The OP had given a discount @ 45% on the MRP of the shoes. Thus, after discount the price of the shoes came to be Rs.7,147/-. Another special discount of 10% to the tune of Rs.714.70 was also offered to the complainant on the discounted price, bringing the price of the shoes to Rs.6432.30.   However, the OP while issuing sale invoice charged Rs.321.60 on the price of Rs.6,432.30 and charged a total amount of Rs.6753.92 from the complainant. On receipt of the shoes, the complainant on 25.07.2016 sent e-mail to Jabong requesting it to refund the amount of Rs.321.60 charged on account of taxes as the MRP was inclusive of all taxes. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund her extra amount of taxes charged to the tune of Rs.321.60 to pay her Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation expenses and cost of Rs.15,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

3.             As per the India Post Tracking report, the notice sent to the OP and was delivered upon it on 01.10.2016. However, none appeared for it and the OP was thus proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.11.2016.

4.             In order to prove the case, the authorized representative of the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex. CW-1/1; copies of invoice Ex.C-1; price tag Ex.C-2 and order confirmation Ex.C-3.

5.             The authorised representative of the complainant has argued that the price tag Ex.C-2 show that the price of the shoes were inclusive of all taxes. However, the OP at the time of issuance of invoice Ex.C-3 again charged taxes to the tune of Rs.321.60 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 written as well as oral submissions, it is established from the material placed on record tag Ex.C-2 that the price of the shoes was inclusive of all taxes. However, the OPs again charged taxes to the tune of Rs.321.60 while issuing invoice Ex.C-3.  The complainant vide her e-mail dated 25.07.2016 requested the OP to refund this amount.  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.

8.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the afore stated case law, we find that charging of taxes on the discounted price by the OP is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.   Hence we direct the OP to refund to the complainant Rs.321.60 (Rs. Three hundred twenty one and paise sixty only) i.e. excess charges of taxes 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 OP 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 07.03.2017 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: 16.03.2017

                                              (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                          President

                      (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member