| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No.442 of 14 Date of Institution: 14-08-2014 Date of Decision: 15-05-2015 Ravinder Singh son of S.Gulzar Singh, resident of H.No.16, Shaheed Nagar, Chhehartta, Amritsar, Punjab. Complainant Versus United Colors of Benetton through its Company Secretary/ Managing Director/ Director/ Authorized Person having its registered office at Shop No.23, 24, Ground Floor, Trillium Mall, Circular Road, Amritsr-143001. Opposite Party Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: In person. For the Opposite Party: Sh. J.S.Bajwa, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Ravinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one trouser from Opposite Party vide bill No. 769-3375 dated 11.7.2014 for Rs.2299/-. Complainant alleges that due to season end sale, Opposite Party sold the trouser on 30% discount on price and as per Tag MRP is Rs.2299/- inclusive of all taxes. But the Opposite Party inspite of having price tag inclusive of all taxes charged 6.05% (Rs.97.36) tax on the said product. The complainant made strong protest to Opposite Party that price tag displays price inclusive of all taxes and Opposite Party charging taxes on the said product against the provision of law. But the Opposite Party did not care and insisted of charging the same and even used foul language to the complainant who was accompanied by his close friends. The complainant has suffered great hardship and it tantamounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.97.36 charged for the tax alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- for mental sufferings harassment and humiliation was also demanded.
- On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the grievance of the complainant pertains to the levying of VAT on the discounted selling price (discounted maximum retail price) of the sale merchandise purchased by him. As per the terms and conditions of the End of Season Sale 2014 (EOSS), the percentage of discount was applicable only on the maximum retail price (MRP) of the merchandise and VAT on the same was to be charged extra from the customers. In the month of July, 2014 the Opposite Party by way of their EOSS offered various discount offers to its customers across India in order to attract customers and boost their sales. Said discount offers were available to the customers subject to certain terms and conditions of the EOSS, which were distinctly displayed at the shop/ showroom of the Opposite Party and also made known to the customers at the time of purchase. As per clause 4 of the terms and conditions applicable to the discount offers, discount was applicable only on the maximum retail price (MRP) of the merchandise and VAT was to be charged extra on the discounted selling price of the merchandise. In compliance with the above mentioned stipulation, VAT was to be levied on the discounted selling price of the merchandise i.e. on the amount arrived at after giving discount of 30% on the MRP. So, the same was charged on the discounted selling price of the merchandise sold i.e. at Rs.1609/- (30% of 2299/- (MRP). The complainant had voluntarily agreed to the aforementioned terms and conditions of the offer and made purchase worth Rs.2299/- from the franchise store of the Opposite Party. The terms and conditions of the EOSS were understood and duly accepted by the complainant as the payment thereof, for the said merchandise was made by the complainant willingly and without any protest or objection. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copy of bill Ex.C2 and copy of tag Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, City Manager Ex.OP1, copy of power of attorney Ex.OP2, copy of pamphlet of EOSS alongwith terms and conditions of EOSS Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Party and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased one trouser for Rs.2299/- (inclusive of all taxes) from Opposite Party on 11.7.2014 vide bill No. 769-3375 dated 11.7.2014. Opposite Party sold the trouser on 30% discount on price, but the Opposite Party inspite of having price tag inclusive of all taxes has charged 6.05% i.e.Rs.97.36 as tax on the said product. The complainant made protest that original price is inclusive of all taxes and charging of taxes again on price after rebate is against the provisions of the law, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and charged Rs.97.36 excess amount as VAT from the complainant. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whereas the case of the opposite party is that as per the terms and conditions of the End of Season Sale 2014 (EOSS), the percentage of discount was applicable only on the maximum retail price (MRP) of the merchandise and VAT on the same was to be charged extra from the customers. Opposite Party further submitted that in the month of July, 2014 the Opposite Party by way of their End of Season Sale 2014 (EOSS) offered various discount offers to its customers. Said discount offers were available to the customers subject to certain terms and conditions of the End of Season Sale 2014 (EOSS) Ex.OP3, which were distinctly displayed at the shop/ showroom of the Opposite Party and also made known to the customers. Opposite Party submitted that VAT was to be levied on the discounted selling price of the merchandise i.e. on the amount arrived at after giving discount of 30% on the MRP. Same was charged on the discounted selling price of the merchandise sold i.e. at Rs.1609/- (30% of Rs.2299/-=Rs.1609/-). The complainant had voluntarily agreed to the aforementioned terms and conditions of the offer and made purchases worth Rs.2299/- from the franchisee store of the Opposite Party. The terms and conditions of the EOSS were understood and duly accepted by the complainant as the payment thereof, for the said merchandise was made by the complainant willingly and without any protest or objection. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased one trouser from Opposite Party on 11.7.2014, the original price of which was Rs.2299/- (inclusive of all taxes). Opposite Party sold the trouser in question on 30% discount on actual price which amounts to Rs.1609/-, but the Opposite Party charged further tax (VAT) @ 6.05% i.e.Rs.97.36 on actual sale price of the product i.e. Rs. 1609/- which comes after giving 30% discount on Rs.2299/- i.e. Rs.690/- (discount). As such, after discount of 30%, the actual price of the product amounts to Rs.1609/- (Rs.2299/-minus Rs.690/- = Rs.1609/-) inclusive of all the taxes because the Opposite Party has already included all the taxes in the original price of the product i.e. Rs.2299/- and 30% discount is given by the Opposite Party on Rs.2299/- and thus, the actual price of the product comes to Rs.1609/- (inclusive of all the taxes). The Opposite Party is not entitled to further charge the tax (VAT) on this amount of Rs.1609/- on the product after giving 30% discount. But the Opposite Party fully knowing all these facts that the original price of the product i.e. Rs.2299/- was already inclusive of all the taxes, had charged further Rs.97.36 (VAT) on the price of the product i.e. Rs.1609/- which comes out after giving 30% discount as promised by the Opposite Party. Said price of Rs.1609/- was inclusive all the taxes after discount. Opposite Party was, therefore, not justified in charging excess tax (same tax/VAT second time) on this amount i.e. Rs.1609/- which already included all the taxes. Opposite Party was, therefore, not justified in charging 6.05% i.e. Rs.97.36 as tax (VAT) on the said product.
- Resultantly, we hold that the Opposite Party was certainly in deficiency of service towards the complainant, rather indulged in Unfair Trade Practice which caused mental as well as financial harassment to the complainant.
- Consequently, we allow the complaint with costs and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.97.36 i.e. excess charged from the complainant in the form of tax (VAT). Opposite Party is also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 15-05-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma) Member Member | |
