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

Consumer Complaint No.425 of 2017

                                                Date of institution:  19.06.2017                                                     Date of decision   :  04.04.2018

Gursharan Singh son of S. Joginder Singh, resident of H.No.49, Phase-IV, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab 160059.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     M/s. Novariss Fashion Trading Private Limited, Plot No.82A, Sector 18, Gurgaon, Haryana 122015 (Registered and Corporate Address) through its Managing Director/ Authorised Signatory/Chief Executive Officer.

2.     M/s. Tech. Connect Retail (P) Ltd. having Registered Address: A-220, Defence Colony, New Delhi -110024, through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory/Chief Executive Officer.

……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Complainant in person.

                Shri Divjyot S. Sandhu, counsel for OP No.1

                OP No.2 ex-parte

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant placed online order on site ‘Jabong.com’ for purchase of one pair of Nike footwear 818099-008 (Air Zoom Vomero 11 Black Running shoes, make Nike) from OPs for personal use and paid Rs.6,822.90 N.P.  Those shoes were delivered at the residence of complainant vide invoice dated 25.01.2017. MRP of the shoes was Rs.12,995/- inclusive of all taxes and after discount, the price of shoes was Rs.6,482.57 N.P. However, tax of amount of Rs.340.33 N.P. recovered from complainant and the same alleged to be unfair trade practice. So prayer made for refund of the excess charged VAT amount of Rs.340.33 N.P alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- more claimed.

2.             In reply filed by OP No.1, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint is filed for abusing process of law; complaint has been filed with malafide intention for seeking publicity. Complainant was fully satisfied with the purchased product. OP provides discount on unit price basis. Detailed break up on all final charges are clearly displayed on the payment page at the checkout stage. Calculations are also mentioned in the copy of sent invoice alongwith the order to customer. Discounts are offered on case by case basis on individual items. The VAT is passed on to the buyer since it is calculated on the unit price and not on MRP basis. Nothing more than MRP has been charged.  VAT is charged as per applicable taxation law. Answering OP claims that it has right to initiate necessary proceedings for malicious prosecution and recovery of costs etc. Admittedly complainant placed order for purchase of one pair of Nike Footwear from website of OP. MRP of the product admittedly was Rs.12,995/-. Sale price excluding tax was Rs.6,482.57 N.P., but tax @ 5.250% was charged of amount of Rs.340.33 N.P. No extra money is charged. It is claimed that if complainant was having any apprehension, then he should not have purchased the product. OP was well within its right to charge tax on the discounted price, more so when the tax is payable to the Govt. Each and other averment of the complaint denied except that an email was received from complainant, which was duly replied by OPs.

3.             OP No. 2 is ex-parte in this case.

4.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-4 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Vinod Abrol, authorised signatory and thereafter closed evidence.

5.             Written arguments not submitted in this case. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

6.             Undisputedly MRP of the footwear purchased by complainant was Rs.12,995/-, but said MRP was inclusive of all taxes, is a fact borne from copy of print on the box placed on record as Ex.C-2. Admittedly amount of Rs.6,822.90 N.P. was charged from the complainant including VAT amount of Rs.340.33 N.P. on the discounted price of Rs.6,482.57 N.P. Mention of same also made in invoice Ex.C-1. As the tax of Rs.340.33 N.P. collected on the discounted price in violation of rules and regulations and that is why complainant sent e-mails Ex.C-3 and C-4 for seeking refund of the excess recovered amount. So the material produced on record by complainant itself establishes that virtually VAT/Tax was charged on the discounted price, despite the fact that MRP was inclusive of all taxes. That certainly is an unfair trade practice because law laid down by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as M/s Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma bearing Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 as well as in case bearing First Appeal No.136 of 2017 titled as M/s Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju decided on 23.05.2017 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh provides that if on the sold product mention made regarding MRP inclusive of all taxes, then charging of extra tax/VAT on the discounted price is unfair trade practice. No law to the contrary produced and as such submission advanced by counsel for OP No.1 has no force that as collection of  VAT/tax done for crediting the said amount to account of Govt. as per applicable laws and as such no unfair trade practice adopted by OPs.

7.             Admittedly discount at 50% on MRP was allowed. Due to allowing of this discount of 50%, the price chargeable was 50% of the MRP only because MRP was inclusive of all taxes. When offer has been given by OPs themselves that MRP will be inclusive of all taxes, then certainly they cannot charge any amount of tax/VAT from complainant on the discounted price because there is nothing on the record to suggest that complainant was made aware about charging of extra tax/VAT on the discounted price. Complainant purchased the product in question online by keeping in view offer of discount sans knowledge about charging of practice of VAT on the discounted price and as such submission advanced by counsel for OP No.1 has no force that no case of unfair trade practice is made out. Due to charging of extra VAT, complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and stood dragged in this litigation and as such he is entitled for compensation for mental agony and harassment and also to litigation expenses, but of reasonable amount only.

8.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OPs to refund excess charged amount of Rs.340.33 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 25.01.2017 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against the OPs.  Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

April 04, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member