DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.222 of 2017
Date of institution: 20.03.2017 Date of decision : 05.01.2018
Alka Sharda wife of Sandeep Sharda, resident of H.No.1205, Phase-V, Mohali.
…….Complainant
Vs
Numero Uno Clothing Ltd., Shop No.F-41, North Country Mall, Kharar Mohali Road, SAS Nagar-140307 through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorised Signatory.
……..Opposite Party No.1
Numero Uno Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Paras Trade Centre, 6th Floor, Sector-2, Gurgaon Faridabad Toll Road, Gurgaon Haryana 122002 through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorised Signatory.
……..Opposite Party No.2
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Present: Ms. Shiti Jain, counsel for the complainant.
OP No.1 ex-parte.
OP No.2 already given up.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant, after visiting OP No.1, the exclusive show room of Numero Uno, purchased one jean having price tag of Rs.3,299/- (inclusive of all taxes). This purchase was made on 29.01.2017 due to advertised offer of OP No.1 of discount of 50% on all the merchandise of Numero Uno. VAT of Rs.139.71 N.P. @ 6.05% charged on discounted price of Rs.2,309.30 N.P. against the rules by following unfair trade practice defined under Section 2 (1) ( r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No positive action taken by OPs for redressal of grievance of complainant and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of excess charged VAT of Rs.139.71 N.P. alongwith compensation for mental harassment and physical agony of Rs.50,000/- but litigation costs of Rs.15,000/-.
2. Claim against OP No.2 has already been given up by complainant by suffering statement on 05.09.2017. OP No.1 is ex-parte in this case.
3. Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith copies of invoice Ex.C-1 and tag Ex. C-2 and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Written arguments submitted by complainant. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. Statement given by complainant through affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith contents of invoice Ex.C-1 establishes that complainant paid Rs.2,449/- to OP No.1 at the time of purchase of jean on 29.01.2017. Ex.C-2 is copy of price tag, which shows as if MRP of purchased product is Rs.3,299/- (inclusive of all taxes). After going through invoice Ex.C-1 it is made out that on MRP of Rs.3,299/-, discount of Rs.989.70 N.P. was given for charging Rs.2,449/- as price. However, VAT @ 5.50% for amount of Rs.139.71 N.P. charged on the discounted price of Rs.2,309.30 N.P. for charging Rs.2,449/- from complainant. As MRP includes VAT and other taxes and as such levying of VAT on the discounted price certainly is unfair trade practice. In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as M/s Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma bearing Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016. Similar view also taken by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in its judgment dated 23.05.2017 titled as M/s Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju bearing First Appeal No.136 of 2017. After going through ratio of these cases, it is made out that when MRP includes all taxes, then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately, meaning thereby that after discount, no VAT can be charged. Ratio of both these cases lays that on discounted price of the product, VAT cannot be charged and as such certainly practice of charging VAT on discounted price is unfair trade practice. The same practice followed by OP in this case by charging VAT on the discounted price and as such certainly complainant entitled to refund of excess charged amount of Rs.139.71 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of purchase namely 29.01.2017 till realisation. On account of above said act of charging VAT illegally, complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and was dragged in litigation and as such he is entitled to compensation as well as litigation expenses. However, keeping in view the fact that the OP No.1 has not come present for contesting the claim of complainant, it has to be held that agony of the complainant virtually stood mitigated due to non raising of contest by OP No.1. So quantum of compensation and litigation costs should not be exorbitant in view of these circumstances.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contends that exemplary costs of more than Rs.10,000/- should be allowed so that such practice may not be followed in future by OPs or any of them. However, law prohibits unjust enrichment. After going through Para No.4 of case titled as M/s Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju (supra) it is made out that in the reported case also, District Forum allowed compensation for physical and mental harassment of Rs.2,000/- but litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/-. Those amounts not enhanced in appeal even. VAT charged in the case before us is not too much and as such allowing of compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- more against OP No.1 only is justified because these amounts are reasonable by keeping in view monetary sufferings of the complainant, more so when interest @ 6% per annum also allowed on the excess charged amount.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP No.1 to refund excess charged amount of Rs.139.71 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 29.01.2017 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 OP No.1. 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 of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Announced
January 05, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
