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

Consumer Complaint No.286 of 2017

                                             Date of institution:  19.04.2017                                             Date of decision   :  04.05.2018

Rohini Sharma daughter of Adarsh Sharma, resident of House No.877, Excel Society, Sector 48-A, Chandigarh.

…….Complainant

Versus

Puma Viom Enterprises, GF-15, Cosmo Plaza, Zirakpur, Punjab 140603 through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorised signatory.

……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Sahil Dawar, counsel for the complainant.

                OP Ex-parte.

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

Order

               Complainant, after visiting OP on 08.04.2017 purchased socks and pants by paying Rs.2,111.07 N.P. to the OP through retail invoice of that date. MRP of the products was Rs.449/- and Rs.3,499/-, which was inclusive of all taxes. After discount the price payable was Rs.1,973.18 N.P. However, OP charged extra amount of Rs.137.89 N.P. by including same as VAT on the discounted price. That practice of charging tax on discounted price is against rules and regulations and decision of Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission and as such by pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP, prayer made for directing OP to refund extra charged tax amount of Rs.137.89 N.P. and pay compensation for physical and mental harassment of Rs.40,000/-. Litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- more claimed.

2.             OP is ex-parte in this case.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith document Ex.C-1 and C-2 and thereafter closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments not submitted by the complainant. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             From the contents of affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 supported by invoice Ex.C-2 alongwith tags Ex.C-1, it is made out that MRP of the purchased products were Rs.449/- and Rs.3,499/- respectively inclusive of all taxes. The discounted price of the products was Rs.1,973.18 N.P.,  but VAT amount of Rs.137.89 N.P. was additionally charged. Total paid amount by complainant through invoice Ex.C-2 was Rs.2,111.07 N.P. So from this, it is obvious that complainant despite getting discount offer, had to pay the VAT amount in addition to the discounted price amount. This is despite the fact that MRP of Rs.449/- and Rs.3,499/- was inclusive of all taxes. That certainly is an unfair trade practice as per law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble UT State Commission.

6.             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 decided on 04.01.2017. 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.137.89 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of  purchase namely 08.04.2017 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 also.

7.             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 OP. 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/- and 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 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.

8.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to the OP to refund the excess charged amount of Rs. 137.89 N.P. with interest @ 6 % P.A. w.e.f.  08.04.2017 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.  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

May 04, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                            (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)                                                                  Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member