DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.157 of 3.5.2017
Decided on: 27.7.2017
Sandeep Kumar s/o Dr.Ashok Gupta, R/o H.No.35-C, New Lal Bagh Colony, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Sammati,Adidas Exclusive, G.F.-11, OMAXE Mall, Oppositte Kali Mata Mandir, Patiala, through its Sale Manager/Prop.
…………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,adv.counsel for complainant.
Opposite party ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Sandeep Kumar, complainant 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.)
2. In brief the case of the complainant is that the OP, in order to promote the sale of its products manufactured under the brand name of “Adidas” offered discount @40% on M.R.P. of the product on 8.1.2017. Persuaded from the offer, he purchased pair of shoes vide retail invoice No.SC 3208 dated 8.1.2017. On the tag, the M.R.P. of the said item was described as Rs.5999/-, i.e. maximum retail price and no extra tax could be charged on the same. It is stated that the op while issuing the invoice, described the M.R.P. of the product as Rs.6499/- and further Rs.514.71 has been charged as Vat on the discounted amount of Rs.3599.29 and in this way he was forced to pay Rs.4114/- instead of Rs.3599.29. It is further stated that the OP not only charged more than the M.R.P. of the pair of shoes but also charged Vat on the discounted price, which not only showed deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on its part. He brought the matter into the notice of the OP but to no effect. This act and conduct of the OP caused mental agony and physical harassment to him. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the OP to refund the excess amount charged from him.It may also be directed to pay compensation, litigation expenses and damages to the tune of Rs.90,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OP but it failed to turn up and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
4. In evidence, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1&C2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. From the invoice dated 8.1.2017, Ex.C1, it is evident that the OP mentioned the M.R.P. of the said pair of shoe as Rs.6499/- and after giving discount of Rs.2899.60 and leveling Vat @ 14.3%, the OP had charged Rs.4114/- from the complainant. From the tag,Ex.C2, it is evident that the M.R.P. of the said pair of shoe has been mentioned as Rs.5999/-( inclusive of all taxes). After discount the @ 40% on the M.R.P. of Rs.5999/-, the complainant was to pay Rs.3599/- meaning thereby the OP has approximately charged Rs.515/-(4114-3599) in excess from the complainant. Thus we not hesitate to conclude that the OP is not only deficient in providing the services but also has indulged in to unfair trade practice and is liable to refund the amount charged over and above the M.R.P. and also by leveling Vat on the discounted price. The OP is also liable to pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant 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 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.515/-, charged over and above the M.R.P. and also 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: 27.7.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
