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

                                Consumer Complaint No.  780 of 2016                                          Date of institution:  24.11.2016                                         Date of decision   :  25.09.2017

Surjit Singh son of Late Charan Singh, resident of House No.1633, Sector 51, Chandigarh.

                             ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

PRP Fashions, SCF No.48, Ground Floor, Phase-7, Mohali.

                                                       ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Sections 12 of

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Jasjit Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                Opposite Party ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Surjit Singh has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant had gone to the OP on 14.10.2016 to purchase some articles. The OP in order to promote sale had offered 50% discount on the MRP of the products. The complainant purchased one article from the OP for MRP of Rs.899/- inclusive of all taxes. The OP had issued retail invoice for Rs.480/- which included Rs.28/- as VAT @ 6.05%.  The complainant has alleged that the charging tax on the MRP is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.    Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund him the extra amount of VAT charged to the tune of Rs.28/- with interest; to pay him Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony Rs.15,000/- as litigation costs.

3.             The notice sent by this Forum was delivered to Mr. Bharat, Manager of the OP on 28.12.2016 but none appeared for the OP despite repeated calling.  Hence, the OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.01.2017.

4.             In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of bill Ex.C-1.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP at the time of issuance of invoice Ex.C-1 again charged VAT to the tune of Rs.27.19 on the discounted price and this act on the part of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  

6.             After hearing the learned counsel for 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  i.e. bill Ex.C-1 that the OP charged VAT to the tune of Rs.27.19 while issuing invoice Ex.C-1.  The OP has not appeared despite service.  The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties argue and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea, which was never put forward in pleadings. As such, the evidence adduced by the complainant remains unrebutted.

7.             We are fortified by the decision of 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 wherein it has been held that charging of VAT on the discounted price is unfair trade practice. 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 in which it was held that the OPs cannot charge VAT on the discounted price where the MRP of the product is inclusive of all taxes

8.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the 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.27.19 (Rs. Twenty seven and paise nineteen only) i.e. excess charges of VAT 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 present complaint stands allowed accordingly.

                The OP is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 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 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: 25.09.2017

                                      (A.P.S.Rajput)
 President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member