Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/77/2017

Tajbir Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Ram Apparels - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Goyal

06 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/77/2017
Date of Institution	:	25/01/2017
Date of Decision	:	06/04/2017

 

Tajbir Kaur d/o Apinder Singh Randhawa r/o #446, Sector 20, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Shree Ram Apparels, W Store, Shop Number 27, DLF City Centre, IT Park, Chandigarh 160101 through its Sales Manager.

……Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                       

               

Argued by	:	Sh. Simranjeet Singh Sidhu, Counsel for complainant
	:	OP ex-parte.

 

Per S.S. Panesar, President

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant purchased three products from the OP vide invoice dated 21.1.2017 having MRP of Rs.2,999/-, Rs.799/- and Rs.899/- respectively. The OP offered discount of 40.01%, 47.06% and 47.05% respectively on the said products. The total amount after discount came to Rs.2,832.90, but, the OP illegally charged an amount of Rs.2,833/- from the complainant by adding Rs.134.90 as VAT @ 5%. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.  
2.         OP did not appear despite due service, therefore, it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 27.3.2017.
3.         The complainant led evidence in support of her contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant.
5.         From a perusal of the record it becomes evident that the complainant did purchase three products namely Mandarin Neck Kurta, solid dupatta, printed Ggt Drape from the OP vide invoice dated 21.1.2017 having MRP of Rs.2,999/-, Rs.799/- and Rs.899/- respectively, as is apparent from their price tags (Annexure P-1). After giving discount of 40.01%, 47.06% and 47.05% respectively on the said products, the total amount after discount came to Rs.2,832.90 only, but, however, the OP illegally charged an amount of Rs.2,833/- from the complainant by adding Rs.134.90 as VAT @ 5%.  The complainant has filed a duly sworn affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as despite due service, the OP did not opt to appear and contest the claim of the complainant which also amounts to implied admission of the claim.
6.      The simple question for determination in the present case is whether MRP includes all taxes, including VAT, and whether, after discount, VAT can be charged or not? A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 1.9.2015 in case titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Versus Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others”, wherein it has been held 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. In another decision in Appeal No.61 of 2016, decided on 18.02.2016, in case titled as “Benetton India Private Limited Vs. Ravinderjit Singh”, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant (Benetton India Pvt. Limited) has held that if it is clearly mentioned as MRP inclusive of all taxes, charging of extra VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice. The ratio of above stated pronouncements is squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, the act of the OP in charging VAT on the discounted price clearly proves deficiency in service on its part.  As such, the OP is liable to refund the excess amount of VAT besides compensation for mental agony, physical pain and litigation expenses to the complainant.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed ex-parte.  The OP is directed as under :-

(i)     To refund to the complainant Rs.134.90 (say Rs.135/-) being the amount of VAT wrongly charged from her;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.

8.         This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/04/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S. Panesar]
hg	Member	Member	President