Jashan Preet Singh Gill filed a consumer case on 27 Jul 2015 against Shoppers Stop in the DF-I Consumer Court. The case no is CC/721/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 18 Aug 2015.
Chandigarh
DF-I
CC/721/2014
Jashan Preet Singh Gill - Complainant(s)
Versus
Shoppers Stop - Opp.Party(s)
Shailendra Sharma
27 Jul 2015
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH
============
Consumer Complaint No
:
CC/721/2014
Date of Institution
:
04/11/2014
Date of Decision
:
27/07/2015
Jashan Preet Singh Gill son of Late S. Lachhman Singh, resident of House No.880, Sector 70, Mohali.
….......... Complainant.
Vs
[1] Shoppers Stop through its Chief Executive Officer, Shoppers Stop Eureka Towers, 9th Floor, B-Wing, Mindspace, Link Road Malad (W), Mumbai – 400064.
[2] Shoppers Stop through its Chief Branch Manager, Plot No. 178-178A, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.
[4] Red Tape through its General Manager at Registered and Head Office: 14/6, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001.
[5] Red Tape through its Manager, Mirza International Limited, Corporate & Marketing Office: A-7, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110076.
…......... Opposite Parties
BEFORE: SH.P.L. AHUJA PRESIDENT
MRS.SURJEET KAUR MEMBER
SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA MEMBER
For Complainant
:
Complainant in person.
For OPs No.1 to 3
:
Sh. Aseem Gupta, Advocate.
For OPs No.4 & 5
:
Ex-parte.
PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER
Succinctly put, the Complainant got enrolled himself as a First Citizen Member of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, for availing various special schemes, discounts and season sales etc. It has been alleged that on 03.07.2014, during a sale at the store of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, the Complainant purchased a pair of Red Tape shoes (Model No.RTS6422C), the MRP of which was Rs.3295/-. After giving flat 40% discount on the MRP, the value of the Shoes had to be Rs.1977/- (Price Tag. Annexure C-5), but to the shock to the Complainant, he was charged Rs.2075/- vide bill Annexure C-6 wherein there was no mention about the tax/extra charges which were being imposed. It has been alleged that the same product, which the Complainant purchased, was available on a lesser price in the other Shops and Stores (Annexure C-7 & C-8). It has been averred that the commodities have to be sold on the MRP and if any discount is being offered, then there shall be no hidden charges. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.
Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.4 & 5 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 18.12.2014.
Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 in their joint reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that the pair of Red Tape Shoes bought by the Complainant had an MRP of Rs.3295/- and were offered for sale on 40% discount. The Complainant was charged Rs.1977/- (price of the shoes after discount) plus VAT, hence totaling to Rs.2075/-. It has been asserted that VAT is calculated and charged on final sale amount as per the provisions of Legal Metrology the product should not be sold on price more than MRP. Thus while selling on discount; all due care is taken that final retail price after discount and the VAT together should not be more than maximum retail price indicated on the product and appropriate discount is provided to the Customer. The bill issued by the answering Opposite Parties clearly depict about the price of the goods and the taxes levied thereon. There were no hidden charges, as alleged, and the amount of VAT charged has been deposited with the respective taxation authorities and hence not gone into the pockets of the answering Opposite Parties. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have been controverted.
Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.
We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 (Opposite Parties No.4 & 5 being ex-parte) and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.
The case of the Complainant is that he was charged extra VAT for the pair of shoes with MRP of Rs.3295/- after giving a flat discount of 40%. It has been alleged that the same product was available on lesser price at the other counters/shops as per Annexure C-7 and C-8. The Complainant has urged that he paid Rs.300/- to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 for becoming Silver Member of First Citizen Scheme to get intimations through various sources like SMS or e-mails regarding the various offers, special schemes, discounts and season sales etc. to be launched by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 from time to time. Annexure C-2 is the computer generated copy of the official website of the Shopper Stop showing Rs.300/- are the charges for First Citizen Membership. It has been alleged that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 discontinued sending the alerts through SMS or e-mails during their special offers without any pre-intimation. Therefore, as per the case of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are deficient in their services for not sending the required SMSs as promised by them and charging extra taxes during the sale.
The stand taken by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 is that VAT is rightly calculated and charged on the sale of the disputed item. As per the provisions of Legal Metrology they have not sold the product on the price more than the MRP and taken a due care that the final retail price after discount and VAT together should not be more than MRP indicated on the product. It has been urged that the amount of VAT charged has been deposited with the respective taxation authorities and hence not gone into their pockets. With regard to the SMS alerts, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have contended that the Complainant negligently/ intentionally has opted for the ‘Do not Disturb’ services (DND), due to which the promotional messages could not be delivered to him. On this issue, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have specifically mentioned in Para No. 5 of their written statement that the Complainant opted for DND service with effect from 30.11.2010. In Para No. 7 of their written statement, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have submitted that the goods which are sold at discounted rates can have VAT extra.
After careful perusal of the file, it is quite evident from Annexures C-9 and C-10, the alerts messages sent to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties, that the DND service was not activated on the mobile of the Complainant. This fact is also corroborated by the alerts message Annexure C-11 which shows that alerts messages are still being sent on the mobile of the Complainant even by the other service providers. It is thus proved that as per Annexure C-10 the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 again started sending alerts messages during the pendency of this case, which falsify the stand taken by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 for not sending the alerts messages on the request of the Complainant as he had activated DND services.
Now, adverting the aspect of charging extra VAT by the Opposite Parties from the Complainant on the discounted product/merchandise. It has been contended by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 that the amount of VAT charged has been deposited with the respective taxation authorities. However, no documents on record have been produced by them to show that the VAT charged from the customers is deposited with the respective taxation authorities.
In this backdrop, the sole question which survives for determination is whether the MRP includes all taxes including VAT and whether after discount VAT can be charged or not? After giving our thoughtful consideration, we are of the considered opinion that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. It is evident from Annexures C-7 and C-8 that on the same pair of shoes purchased by the Complainant, the other stores after giving flat 40% discount on MRP, did not charge any VAT. Meaning thereby that MRP includes VAT and after discount no VAT can be charged, so on discounted product also VAT cannot be charged if VAT is included in MRP. Pertinently, since the Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 are proved to have not charged additional amount of VAT and the relevant bills clearly show that the element of VAT is included in the MRP discounted price, therefore, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the instant Complaint qua Opposite Parties No.4 and 5.
At any rate, if the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have offered discount of 40% for an article purchased by the Complainant/Customer, then they are bound to sell the article(s) after discount. Though Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 had offered 40% discount on the article in question, still they charged 5% extra VAT on discounted price inspite of specific mention on the tag MRP inclusive of all taxes. When, once it is mentioned as MRP with inclusive of all taxes, charging of 5% VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice. Here we are fortified by the similar view taken by 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. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 for not offering their services of the SMS alerts to the Complainant inspite of his being Member of the Silver Member of First Citizen Scheme and charging VAT on discounted product, clearly proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant
For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are directed, jointly and severally, to:-
[a] Pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant;
[b] Pay Rs.7,000/- towards costs of litigation;
The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation of Rs.7,000/-.
Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
Announced
27th July, 2015
Sd/-
(P.L. AHUJA)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(SURJEET KAUR)
MEMBER
Sd/-
(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.