DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.276 of 18.7.2017
Decided on: 14.9.2017
Kiranjeet Kaur D/O Sh. Sadhu Singh r/o # 124-B, Azad Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Sammati,Adidas Exclusive, G.F.-11, OMAXE Mall, Opposite 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
Ms Kiranjeet Kaur, 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 the M.R.P. of the said products, on 20.6.2017. Persuaded from the offer, she purchased pair of shoes vide retail invoice No.SC 813 dated 20.6.2017. On the tag of the said product, the M.R.P. of the was described as Rs.5299/-(inclusive of all taxes). The payment was made in cash. However, it came to the notice of the complainant that an amount of Rs.454.65 was charged extra by the OP on account of Vat as the payable amount after giving discount @40% on the amount of Rs.5299/- came to Rs.3179/-whereas the OP charged an amount of Rs.3634/- from her. She brought the matter into the notice of the OP but to no effect. The charging of extra amount on account of Vat by the OP not only amounted to deficiency of service on its part but it also indulged into unfair trade practice. The act and conduct of the OP caused mental agony and physical harassment to her. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the OP to refund the excess amount charged from her on account of tax.It may also be directed to pay compensation, litigation expenses and damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
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 retail invoice dated 20.6.2017, Ex.C1, it is evident that the complainant purchased the pair of shoe with the product description as BB4854-5-ELEMENT REFINE 3W with the M.R.P. of Rs.5299/-. The same price was also found mentioned on the tag Ex.C2. From the invoice, Ex.C1, it is further evident that after giving the discount of Rs.2119.60, the payable amount has been mentioned as Rs.3179.40. The OP by adding Rs.454.65 on account of Vat @ 14.3% has raised the bill to the tune of Rs.3634/- .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 compensate the complainant for causing her mental agony and physical harassment . 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.454.65/-, rounded off Rs.455/- charged on account of tax , 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: 14.9.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
