DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.260 of 10.7.2017
Decided on: 29.11.2017
Sehaj Bhasin d/o Sh.Nardeep Singh Bhasin R/o Flat No.641, A.T.S.Flats, Dera Bassi, District Mohali.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Reebok, Basic Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Shop No.26, Bhupendra Road, Patiala through its Prop/ Sales Manager.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Paramjit Singh Walia, Advocate,
counsel for the complainant.
Sh.H.S.Bhamra,Adv.counsel for complainant.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Complainant Sehaj Bhasin has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.).
-
-
-
The ld.counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Anuj Kumar, authorized signatory of Reebok and closed the evidence.
-
6. From the invoice, Ex.C1, it is evident that the OP mentioned the M.R.P. of the aforesaid item as Rs.1299/-.After giving discount of Rs.519.60, the amount has been mentioned as Rs.779.40 . However, the OP after leveling Vat @ 6.05% i.e. Rs.47.15, had raised the bill for an amount of Rs.827/-. On the tag Ex.C2 of the purchased item in question, the M.R.P. has been mentioned as Rs.1299/- inclusive of all taxes). It may be stated that as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014, no extra amount over and above the M.R.P., printed on the goods could be charged, even the same has been sold on discount, as M.R.P. has already been included all taxes levied on the goods. Since the OP has charged Vat on the discounted price of the product, from the complainant, in violation of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods(Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act,2014, therefore, it has not only committed deficiency in service but also indulged in to unfair trade practice. The OP is thus liable to refund the amount charged on account of Vat and also liable to compensate the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment to her. It is also liable to pay litigation expenses. In the case titled as M/s Aeroclub (woodland) Versus Rakesh Sharma, Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016, decided on 04 Jan 2017, the Hon’ble National Commission has already held that “In our opinion, therefore, the defence of the Petitioners that they had charged VAT as per law is of no avail in so far as the issue at hand, viz. misleading advertisement, resulting in unfair trade practice, is concerned. We are in complete agreement with the Fora below that any discount falling short of “Flat 40% on the MRP would amount to unfair trade practice, as defined in the Act”.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.P. in the following manner:
- To refund Rs.47.15 charged on account of Vat , to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation, for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.5,000/-towards costs of litigation
The O.P. is further directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:29.11.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
