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

Consumer Complaint No.422 of 2017

                                                 Date of institution:  16.06.2017                                                         Date of decision   :  01.03.2018

Sarita Kumari wife of Ashok Kumar, resident of House No.1263, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.

…….Complainant

Vs

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 complainant.

                OP Ex-parte.

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

Order

               Complainant, after knowing about the discount offer of OP, visited its premises on 04.06.2017 for purchase of water bottle, on which MRP of Rs.699/- (inclusive of all taxes) was mentioned. Retail invoice bill for amount of Rs.479.37 N.P. inclusive of Rs.59.97 N.P. as VAT @ 14.300% was issued, despite the fact that this VAT cannot have been charged on the discounted price. That practice of charging extra VAT on the discounted MRP alleged to be unfair trade practice and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of amount of Rs.59.97 N.P. with interest alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.40,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2.             OP is ex-parte in this case.

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

4.             Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Contents of complaint as well as of affidavit and invoice Ex.C-2 establishes that water bottle purchased by complainant after visiting OP at Zirakpur (District Mohali) on 04.06.2017 by paying price of Rs.479.37 N.P. including VAT amount of Rs.59.97 N.P. @ 14.300%.   MRP of the purchased product mentioned as Rs.699/- (inclusive of all taxes) on the tag, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.C-1. It is not disputed that discount was granted on the MRP and it is on the discounted price that VAT @ 14.300% = Rs.59.97 N.P. has been charged. Practice of charging VAT on the discounted price has been held to be unfair trade practice as per 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.  In view of this legal position, certainly OP adopted unfair trade practice by charging VAT on the discounted price, which caused mental harassment and agony to complainant, due to which she is entitled for refund of excess charged amount alongwith compensation for mental harassment and agony and also to litigation expenses.

6.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP to refund excess charged amount of Rs.59.97 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 04.06.2017 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.

                Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Forum, therefore, the parties through their counsel are directed to receive free certified copy of the order by hand and it is the responsibility of the appearing learned counsel for the parties to inform them accordingly.  This direction issued by following the principle laid down by Hon’ble  Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.956 of 2017 titled as Partap Rai Sharma Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), decided on 25.01.2018. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

March 01, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                                   (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)                                                               Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member