Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/98/2017

Simrajeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shop Manager, Reebok - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vikas Goyal Adv.

26 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	98/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	27.01.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	26.07.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Simranjeet Singh son of Iqbal Singh r/o H.No.815, Sector 16,Chandigarh

                   …..Complainant

Versus

 

Shop Manager, Reebok Basic Clothing Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.101, First Floor Elante Mall, Chandigarh

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:     SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SH.RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Present:     Complainant in person.

                   Sh.Manoj Lakhotia, Adv. for the OP.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

                In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a product of the MRP of Rs.899/-  on discount vide invoice dated 22.12.2016 for Rs.607/- including Rs.67.42P charged as VAT @ 12.5% on the discounted price. It has been averred that the MRP is always inclusive of all the taxes including VAT. The complainant has alleged that the Opposite Party has adopted unfair trade practice by charging extra VAT. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.           In its written statement, Opposite Party took the preliminary objections inter alia that the complainant was fully aware of the terms and conditions displayed by the OP before purchasing the product in issue and after knowing about the discount offer and after being fully aware of the terms and conditions on which the discount offer could be availed, the complainant after due application of mind and accepted the terms and condition by duly paying the consideration amount without any protest whatsoever.  It has further been pleaded that since the issue charging VAT on the discounted price is already sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.8848 of 2017 titled as M/s Aero Club (Woodlnad) Vs. Rakesh Sharma and the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to admit the SLP and grant leave vide order dated 31.03.2017 and, therefore, the complaint should be adjourned sine die. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           We have heard the complainant in person, Counsel for the OP and have also gone through the evidence on record.
4.           The complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed simply on the ground that the invoice dated 22.12.2016 placed on record by the complainant himself with the complaint as Annexure P-1 does not relate to the product in question because the MRP of the product as depicted in the opening para of the complaint is Rs.899/- and the VAT charged @ 12.5% on the discounted price is Rs.67.42P whereas in the invoice attached with the complaint, the MRP of the product is mentioned at Rs.999/- and the VAT charged @ 12.5% is Rs.74.92P.  Therefore, the contents of invoice attached with the complaint as Annexure P-1 does not pertains to the product as averred in the complaint.  Thus, the complaint filed by the complainant is misconceived and vague.

14.           For the reasons recorded above, finding the complaint to be devoid of any merit, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
15.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

26.07.2017                                                                

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER