DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.66 of 23/02/2018  

                                                   Decided on:      19/06/2019 

Amandeep Singh S/o Sh. Jagmohan Singh, aged 42 years, # 6, Street No.15, Anand Nagar, Patiala.                                                                                             

      Complainant

                                       Versus

Spykar Life Styles, New Osho Casuals, Phatak No.22, Patiala, through its Prop./

Sales Manager.

                                                                                             Opposite Party  

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                       Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh. B. S. Dhaliwal, Member                                

ARGUED BY:

                             Sh. Paramjit Singh Walia Adv.: Counsel for the complainant.          

                             Opposite party : Ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                   B. S. DHALIWAL, MEMBER

1.                The Complainant Amandeep Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed  the complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( here-in-after referred as Act) against Spykar Life Styles (here-in-after referred as Opposite party).

2.                Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the goods  manufactured under the International Brand name of “Spykar Life Styles” are being sold in the open market by OP being Retail Brand Store. The OP in order to promote the sale of the products manufactured under the brand name of Spykar offered 50 % discount on MRP on 25/2/2017. Complainant purchased the jean from OP vide Invoice No.OSH-02442 dt.25/2/2017. The MRP of the jean was 2599/- (Inclusive of all taxes) as printed on the price tag.  The seller can not charge any tax whatsoever over and above the MRP. The OP issued invoice of the said item dt. 25/2/2017. The payment of net amount Rs.1378/- was paid in cash.

3.                It is further alleged that it came to the notice of the complainant that OP has charged extra VAT on the item purchased by the complainant despite the fact that MRP included all the taxes including VAT. The Gross bill amount of the said item, after 50 % discount comes to Rs.1299/- where as OP has charged Rs.78.50 as VAT extra illegally on the sale price after discount i.e. Rs.1299/-. The OP has charged tax on tax which is not only illegal but it amounts to an unfair trade practice. The OP has thus indulged into an unfair trade practice coupled with deficiency in service.

4.                It is also alleged that the complainant brought the matter in dispute to the notice of Sale Manager but he told that VAT is extra as per T & C and more over VAT is being charged as per directions and instructions given by the manufacturer.

5.                By this complaint, the complainant has prayed that  OP be directed to refund VAT Rs.78.50 P and to pay compensatory costs for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses as well as damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

6.                Notice was issued to the Opposite party but it did not appear despite service, hence was proceeded against ex-parte.

7.                Complainant was aforded opportunity to produce its evidence. In support of the case, ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA, bill Ex.C-1, price tag Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence.

8.                We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the case carefully.

9.                    The ld. Counsel reiterated the averments as has been taken in the complaint to support his case. To support his contentions, ld. Counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgements of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in “First Appeal No.759 of 2017 titled as Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Aasthaa Negi decided on 15/06/2018 and First appeal No.27 of 2018 titled as Paramjit Singh Walia Versus Levi’s Retail Square decided on 12/09/2018”. From the Invoice Ex.C-1  as well as Tag Ex.C-2 it is crystal clear that the OP mentioned the MRP of the purchased goods/item as Rs.2599/-. After giving discount of Rs.1300/- the payable amount comes to Rs.1299/- but the OP after having  added Rs.78.59 tax on account of VAT has raised the bill for an amount of Rs.1377.59 ( rounding Rs.1378/-). 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 to  compensate the complainant for causing  mental agony and physical harassment. It is also liable to pay litigation expenses. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in “The Branch Manager M/s Shirt Palace Branch Black Bird Showroom Vs. Chandru H.C.” Appeal no.3723 of 2011, decided on 16.01.2014 held that charging of VAT on the discounted price is unfair trade practice. Similar view has been adopted by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 01.09.2015, titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and others” wherein it was held that OP cannot charge VAT on the discounted price. The matter has also been settled by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as “Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju” 2018 Law Suit (CO)22 wherein it was held that advertisement in the above form is nothing, but an allurement to gullible consumers to buy the advertise merchandise at a cheaper bargain price, which itself was not intended to be the real bargaining price. Therefore, it tantamounts to unfair trade practice. The National Commission

has held that charging of VAT extra after reducing the MRP of product by the percentage of discount is unfair trade practice. This Commission has also held a similar view in First Appeal No.759 of 2017 decided on 15.06.2018 titled as “Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd vs. Aasthaaa Negi.

10.              In view of the given facts, net conclusion is that the OP has charged  VAT over the discounted amount. Failure on the part of OP to address the genuine grievance of charging VAT the complainant was forced to file the present complaint. OP could avoided unnecessary harassment and mental torture to the complainant as well as this litigation.

11.              Thus allowing the complaint we direct the opposite party:

i.        To refund Rs.78.50/- charged on account of VAT along with interest         @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase till payment  to the  complainant.

ii        To pay Rs.4000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and

physical harassment including cost of litigation.

     The Opposite party is directed to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

12.              The case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

13.              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:  19/06/2019

B. S. DHALIWALINDERJEET KAUR

                                              MEMBER                                 MEMBER