Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/102

Reena Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reebok Basic - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 102 of 12.02.2018

Date of Decision            :   10.04.2018

 

Reena Singh w/o Vijay Singh r/o House No.587, Sector-25, Panchkula.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

Reebok Basic Clothing Pvt. Ltd Silver Arc Mall Ludhiana Punjab through its Manager or authorized representative.

Opposite party

 

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant            :         Sh.Harpreet Saini, Advocate

For OP                           :         Sh.Manoj Lakhotia, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.              Complainant purchased two products for her own use from OP on 25.06.2017 by paying an amount of Rs.381/-. MRP of each product was Rs.299/-,  inclusive of all taxes. Discount of 40% was given on the MRP and            thereafter, the price of the products was Rs.358.80P. However, OP charged VAT @6.05% on the amount of discounted price. That charging alleged to be an unfair trade practice and as such, this complaint for refund of excess charged amount of Rs.21.71P along with compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.15,000/, but litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.

2.              In written reply filed by OP, it is claimed that jurisdiction of this Forum erroneously invoked because complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, complaint is based on vague, misconceived notions and baseless assumptions. Complainant is alleged to be a habitual litigant. Complaint is not disclosing any cause of action. Issue of charging VAT on discounted price is already pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition No.8868 of 2017 titled as M/s Aero Club (Woodland) vs. Rakesh Sharma. The above said special leave petition has been admitted by grant of leave vide order dated 31.03.2017 and as such, prayer made for adjourning the proceedings sine die. OP concern has acquired a good market reputation for its range of offered products, but the present complaint has been filed by suppressing the material facts. Complainant failed to disclose that the invitation to offer discount along with the terms and conditions, on which, the consumers could avail the discount offer, were prominently displayed by the answering OP at various spots in and around the shop/showroom. Complainant after due application of mind accepted the terms and conditions of the OP by duly paying the consideration amount without any protest. Now the complainant trying to wriggle out of the contract of purchase by filing this complaint with intention to harass the OP. A reasonable person must have understood the bargain price to be the discounted price along with applicable VAT thereon. On such like products sold at a discount in the market, VAT is always charged on the discounted price. Factum of offering the discount or of charging VAT on the discounted price as alleged in the complaint are admitted, but all other averment of complaint denied regarding providing of deficient service or of adoption of unfair trade practice.

3.                Complainant in order to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 and Ex.C2 and thereafter, counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

4.       Counsel for OP also tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OPA of Sh.Nikit Nivedit Wazira, the authorized signatory/representative of OP along with documents Ex.OP1 and OP2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments by counsel for the parties alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                Complainant through her affidavit Ex.CA as well as invoice Ex.C1 able to establish that on the discounted price, VAT of amount of Rs.21.71P was charged @6.05%. This charging done, despite the fact that MRP is inclusive of all taxes as per produced Tags Ex.C2. Act of charging of VAT on the discounted price certainly is an unfair trade practice and as such, due to adoption of that unfair trade practice, complainant suffered mental harassment and agony at the hands of OP, more so when the refund of extra charged amount not done, despite request.

7.                As per law laid down in cases titled as M/s. Aero Club (Woodland) through its Manager vs. Rakesh Sharma, bearing Revision No.3477 of 2016 decided on 4.1.2017 by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and Ethnicity vs Heena Aggarwal-2017(1)CLT-621(Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ), in case, discount on MRP is given under circumstances that MRP is inclusive of all taxes, then act of deliberately charging VAT and other taxes on price after discount, is an unfair trade practice. So, certainly unfair trade practice is adopted in this case by OP as held above.

8.                Order passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as M/s Aero Club(Woodland) through its Manager vs. Rakesh Sharma has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through Special Leave Petition, which has been admitted for hearing and copy of order regarding grant of leave is produced on record as Ex. OP1 and as such, it is vehemently contended by counsel for OP that proceedings of this complaint should be adjourned sine die. That submission of counsel for OP certainly has no force because as per Order 41 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, the filing of appeal against any order does not amount to automatic stay of order under challenge. On the same analogy, it has to be held that even if Special Leave Petition, as disclosed by contents of Ex.OP1 has been admitted against the order of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed in case of M/s Aero Club(Supra), despite that stay of that order passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi not ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and as such, the order passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi bound to be followed by this Forum, being subordinate to that Commission.

9.                It is also vehemently contended by counsel for OP that due notice of charging extra VAT has been given to all the consumers by putting on various spots, in and around the shop/showroom as well as on the website poster like Ex.OP2 and as such complainant and other consumers were duly made known that VAT will be charged extra on the discounted price on the products sold by OP. It is not at all the case of OP that poster like Op2 is also put inside the showroom, from where the products in question purchased by the complainant and as such, virtually due notice of contents of Ex.OP2 not shown to be given to the complainant. Being so, benefit from the contents of Ex.OP2 cannot be gained by OP. As the practice of charging VAT on discounted price of MRP(inclusive of all taxes),  has been deprecated by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and as such this practice of charging VAT, being unfair trade practice in this case also has to be deprecated for giving due relief of refund of extra charged amount with interest @6% per annum from the date of purchase namely 25.6.2017 till payment. No other point argued.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint allowed by directing OP to refund the excess received amount of Rs.21.71 NP with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 25.06.2017 till payment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP. Payment of the amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Vinod Gulati)                               (G.K. Dhir)

              Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:10.04.2018

Gurpreet Sharma.