DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.815 of 2016
Date of institution: 15.12.2016 Date of decision : 20.11.2017
Gurdeep Singh son of Ashok Kumar, resident of H.No.5, Fatehpur, Sector 20, Panchkula.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. RKG Agency, FF 22, Paras Downtown Square, Zirakpur, Mohali through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.
2. Spykar lifestyles Pvt. Ltd., 271, Business Park, 1st Floor, V.N. Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai, through its Principal Officer/Authorised Signatory.
…..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present : Shri Arshdeep Singh Arora, cl. for the complainant.
OPs ex-parte.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.
Complainant Gurdeep Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OP”) under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The OPs had offered 40% discount on sale on 07.11.2016. The complainant purchased two pairs of jeans with MRP of Rs.2,999/- each inclusive of all taxes. The OPs had offered 40% discount on purchase of jeans. However, in the invoice the OP had charged Rs.240/- approximately as 5% VAT. The complainant pointed out this fact to the OPs that charging of 5% VAT on the product when the MRP was inclusive of taxes amounts to unfair trade practice and requested the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.240/- to which the OPs flatly refused. Thus charging of VAT on the discounted price has caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has sought direction to the OPs to refund him Rs.240/- charged as VAT; to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and physical agony and Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. As per the reports retrieved from the site of India Post, the notices were delivered on the OP No.1 and 2 on 30.12.2016 and 03.04.2017 respectively. However, none appeared for them and they were accordingly proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.02.2017 and 08.05.2017 respectively.
4. In order to prove his case the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex. CW1/1; copies of bill Ex.C-1 and tags Ex.C-2 and C-3.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the price tags Ex.C-2 and C-3 show that the price of the jeans was inclusive of all taxes. However, the OPs at the time of issuance of invoice Ex.C-1 again charged VAT to the tune of Rs.240/- on the discounted price and this act on the part of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence and the written as well as oral submissions, it is established from the material placed on record i.e. tags Ex.C-2 and C-3 that the price of the jeans was inclusive of all taxes. However, the OPs again charged VAT to the tune of Rs.240/- approximately while issuing invoice Ex.C-1. Non appearance of OPs despite service of notice shows that they have nothing to say as regard to the averments of the complainant. The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties argue and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea, which was never put forward in pleadings. A party cannot adduce evidence and set case inconsistent to the pleadings. No amount of proof can substitute pleadings, which are the foundation of the claim of the parties. When there is no pleading, the party is precluded from adducing evidence.
7. Further we are fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No.3723 of 2011 titled as The Branch Manager M/s. Shirt Palace Branch Black Bird Showroom Vs. Chandru H.C. decided on 16.01.2014 wherein it has been held that charging of VAT on the discounted price is unfair trade practice. A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015 decided on 01.09.2015 in case titled as Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and others in which it was held that the OPs cannot charge VAT on the discounted price where the MRP of the product is inclusive of all taxes
8. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the case law, we find that charging of taxes on the discounted price by the OPs is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence we direct the OPs to refund to the complainant Rs.240/- (Rs. Two hundred Forty only) i.e. excess charges of VAT and to pay him a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.
The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of decision till actual payment.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 20.11.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
