DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.250 of 4.7.2017
Decided on: 20.12.2017
Santoshi w/o Hari Singh R/o #17, Rajindra Gymkhana & Mahindra Club, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. The COBB Apparels Pvt.Ltd., located at SCO No.14, Bhupindra Nagar Road, Patiala 147001 through its authorized representative .
2. The COBB Apparels Pvt.Ltd., located atA-9, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi Pin 110034 through its authorized representative.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Gaurav Singla, Advocate,
counsel for complainant .
Sh.Desh Raj, Sales Manager of the opposite parties.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Smt.Santoshi, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.).
-
-
The Manager of the OPs has tendered in evidence his sworn affidavits, Exs.OPA&OPB alongwith document Ex.C1 and closed the evidence of the OPs.
-
6. From the copy of the tag Ex.C2, it is evident that the M.R.P. of the aforesaid item has been mentioned as Rs.699/-(inclusive of all taxes). Ex.C1, is the retail invoice whereby the complainant purchased the said item. On the said invoice also the M.R.P. has been mentioned as Rs.699/- . After giving discount of Rs.349.50 @ 50%/-, the payable amount has come to Rs.349.50. But the OP after having added Rs.21.14 as Vat has raised the bill for an amount of Rs.371/-. 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 selling on discount as, M.R.P. has already been included all taxes levied on the goods.. Thus, by charging extra amount on account of Vat, the OP has not only committed deficiency in service but also indulged into unfair trade practice and is liable to refund the same to the complainant. It is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith 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.Ps. in the following manner:
- To refund to the complainant Rs.21.14 charged excess on account of Vat.
- 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.Ps. are 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: 20.12.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
