Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/849/2017

Khushboo Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Novaris Fashion Trading Private Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Yogesh K. Puri Adv.

23 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	849 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	30.10.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	23.03.2018

 

 

 

 

Khushboo Arora C/o Plot No.44, New Timber Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh   

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Novaris Fashion Trading Private Ltd., through its Managing Director, (WWW.JABONG.COM), Plot NO.82A, Sector 8, Gurgaon, Haryana 122015

2]  Wearhouse Product Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Khasra No.14/14, 17, 18, 23, 24/1, Village Khawaspur, Tehsil Farrukhnagar, Near Jamalpur Chowk 122503, Haryana.

    2^nd Address:

Wearhouse Product Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, C-424, Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024.

3]  Major Brands India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, 401, 4^th Floor, Skyline Icon Near Mittal  Industrial Estate, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059

….. Opposite Parties  

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

 

For complainant(s)      : Sh.Yogesh K Puri, Advocate  

 

For Opposite Party(s)   : OPs exparte.

 

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant in response to the discount offer on a pair of Aldo Stilettoes Shoes by Opposite Party No.1 purchased one pair of such shoes having MRS of Rs.8990/-.  However, when the article was delivered to her, she was charged Rs.5663.70p.  It is averred that the maximum retail price of the said article/product was Rs.8990/-, which was inclusive of all taxes (Vat also) and after discount it was of Rs.5381.19 i.e. the amount/cost payable by the complainant for the said product but the OP still charged Rs.5663.70 which included illegal charge of extra Vat of Rs.282.51, which is arbitrary and unsustainable. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties did not turn up despite service of notice sent through registered posts, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 8.12.2017 and 16.3.2018 respectively.

 

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of her contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       The ld. Counsel for the complainant at the time of arguments submitted that the complainant on 29.1.2017 purchased one pair of Shoes from Opposite party No.1, who offered discount on MRP of Rs.8990/-. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties  issued retail invoice for an amount of Rs.5663.70 whereby the Opposite Parties illegally charged extra VAT to the tune of Rs.282.51 whereas the total cost of the product mentioned on the tag is inclusive of all taxes.  The counsel for the complainant further claimed that as the VAT has already been added to the said cost of the product, so the complainant cannot be charged extra tax by doing so. Submitted that the Opposite parties had not only indulged into unfair trade practice but also rendered deficient service to the complainant.

 

6]       On the contrary, the Opposite Parties did not turn up to put their defence despite service of notice, which draws an adverse inference against them and hence the assertions of the complainant goes unrebutted and uncontroverted and as such, the same are believed to be correct.

 

7]       After going through the submissions of ld.Counsel for complainant and documents on record, we are of the concerted view that the customer/complainant is liable to pay extra amount of the VAT imposed by the Opposite Parties only if the article is labelled as MRP “exclusive of all taxes”.  But it is quite clear vide Annexure C-1 that MRP of the product/item in question is ‘inclusive of all taxes’, so the charging of extra VAT is clearly unfair trade practice resorted to by the Opposite Party. Thus the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the complainant for their deficient act and for their indulgence into unfair trade practice.

 

8]       Our view is fortified by the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 – M/s. Aero Club (Woodland) Vs. Rakesh Sharma, decided on 4^th Jan., 2017, as the controversy in issue has been laid at rest, wherein it has been held that:-

“14.   In our opinion, the advertisement in the above form is nothing but an allurement to gullible Consumers to buy the advertised merchandise at a cheaper bargain price, which itself was not intended to be the real “bargaining price” and, therefore, tantamounts to unfair trade practice, as found by both the Fora below. Significantly, under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2014, the “Maximum Retail Price” printed on the goods, a mandatory labelling requirement, at the relevant time, for pre-packaged goods, means “such price at which the consumer goods shall be sold in retail and such price shall include all taxes levied on the goods.” In that view of the matter, having seen the word “FLAT” in the advertisement, a consumer would be tempted to buy the goods under a bonafide belief that he would get a flat 40% off on the MRP. 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.

 

9]       The ratio of the afore-cited judicial pronouncement is  squarely applicable to the present lis. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties in charging VAT on discounted product, clearly proves deficiency in service having indulged into unfair trade practice on their part, which certainly had caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. 

 

10]      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties not only for resorting to unfair trade practice but also for the deficiency in service towards the complainant and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

a]  To refund Rs.282.51 i.e. the amount charged extra VAT on the discounted product having MRP inclusive of all taxes.  

 

b]  To pay a consolidated amount of Rs.1500/- to the complainant towards compensation as well as litigation cost, on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs;

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on amount as mentioned at sub-para (a) & (b) above from the date of this order till it is paid.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

23^rd March, 2018                                                                                                                                                                              Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER