DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 204 of 12.5.2016
Decided on: 15.3.2017
Paramjit Singh Walia S/o Sh.Raghbir Singh R/o # 19 A-1, Ranbir Marg, Model Town, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Sales Manager/ Prop. Kapson Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.7-8, 22 No. Phatak, Bhupindra Road, Patiala.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.P.S.Walia, complainant in person.
Sh.Sunil Kumar Garg, Advocate, counsel
for opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Paramjit Singh Walia, 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 brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. That the manufactures of the London Fog and Color Plus brands, in order to promote the sale of the products, offered discount ranging from 40% to 60% on M.R.P. on 26.1.2016. Persuaded from the discount offered by the O.P.,the complainant purchased two ladies long coat, one sweat shirt , each of London Fog brand and one Color Plus Nehru Wool Vest on 26.1.2016 from the O.P. vide cash memo No.35279. The M.R.P. of the above said items mentioned on the tags was Rs.6599/-, Rs.4999/-,3999/- and Rs.5495/-( inclusive of all taxes). The payment was made through credit card. The gross bill amount of all the items after discount came to Rs.9609.41, while the O.P. charged Rs.10,191/-, thereby having charged Rs.581.37 extra @ 6.05% on account of Vat, despite the fact that the M.R.P. was included all taxes. He brought the matter into the notice of the O.P. who told that VAT is extra as per T & C and flatly refused to refund the excess amount charged by it. Thus the O.P. has charged the tax twice i.e. tax on tax , which is not only illegal but also an unfair trade practice on its part. For this act of the O.P. he suffered from mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the O.P. to refund the excess amount charged from him and to pay compensation, litigation expenses and damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-..
3. On being put to notice, the O.P. appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and that the manufacturing company has not been made a party in the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the above said items from it. It is stated that it sells the products of the above said brands as per the terms and conditions of the manufacturing company. No demand or objection was raised by the complainant at the time of purchase. Charging of Vat was not wrong as it is was the policy of the manufacturing company. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. It also not indulged into unfair trade practice. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence.
On the other hand, the O.P. tendered in evidence Ex.OPA sworn affidavit of Raman Kant ( Legal Officer/Legal Manager) Kapson Fashion and its counsel closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. From the invoice dated 26.1.2016, Ex.C5, it is evident that the complainant purchased four items from the O.P.. for an amount of Rs.5495/-, Rs.6599/-, Rs.4999/- and Rs.3999/-.The tags Exs.C1 to C4 , regarding the purchase of the items are showing the M.R.P. inclusive of all taxes. After giving discount, the actual price came to Rs.9609/-, but the O.P. charged Rs.10,191/-. after adding Rs.581.37 on account of Vat @ 6.05% ,vide bank receipt, Ex.C6, dated 26.1.2016. Once on the tags , it is categorically mentioned that MRP is inclusive of all taxes, then charging of extra vat or tax, is certainly against the trade practice and thus the O.P is liable to refund the extra amount charged from the complainant. Not only this, it is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith 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 failing 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.Ps. in the following manner:
- To refund Rs.581.37 being charged as Vat.
- To pay Rs.5000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.3,000/-towards costs of litigation
The O.P. is further directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the 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:15.3.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
