Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/713/2016

Harsh Tandon - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reebok India Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

D.R. Kaith Adv. , Vishal Gupta Adv.& Ankit Gupta Adv.

23 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint  No	:	713 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	06.09.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	23.11.2016

 

 

 

 

Harsh Tandon s/o Sh.Ashwini Tandon, r/o H.No.3226/3, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh

                   …..Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Reebok India Co. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Unitect Commercial Tower-2,  Block B, 7^th Floor, Greenwood City, Sector 45, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.

 

2.       Reebok Adisports India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Store Manager, Shop No.18, Ground Floor, D.T. Mall, DLF City Center, I.T. Park, Kishangarh, UT, Chandigarh-160101.

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:      SH.RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

For complainant            : Sh.Ankur Gupta, Advocate.

For Opposite Party(s)    : OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

 

                   In brief, the case of the complainant is that the OPs, in order to promote the sale of its products, offered discount @ 60% on the M.R.P. and he purchased a Sweat Shirt vide Invoice dated 20.08.2016 for Rs.840/-, Annexure C-1 out of which a sum of Rs.39.98P was charged towards VAT @ 5% on the discounted price. It has been averred that the MRP of the article was already inclusive of all taxes. He also objected to the charging of 5% VAT at the MRP of the article but to no effect.  Alleging deficiency in service for the above act & conduct of the OPs and also for the unfair trade practice resorted to by the OPs, this complaint has been filed by the complainant.  

2.           Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Parties failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.10.2016.
3.           The Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.
4.           We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.
5.           After hearing the Counsel for the complainant and going through the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter. The complainant has produced on record a copy of the Invoice of the item in question from which it cannot be ascertained that as to whether the MRP of the item in question is inclusive of all the taxes or not.  The complainant has not produced on record a copy of the price tag of the item in question to corroborate the fact that the price of the item in question is inclusive of all the taxes and that the OPs have illegally charged VAT on the discounted price. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove his case against the OPs.
6.           For the reasons recorded above, finding the complaint to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
7.           The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

23.11.2016

Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER