Order dictated by:
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member
1. Dinesh Sharma complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that opposite party is retail outlet of readymade garments and the complainant purchased readymade garments on 25.1.2017 vide cash memo No. SLWRM-5990 of Rs. 3340/-. Due to sale promotion scheme opposite party sold garments on 50% discount on price . As per price tag, MRP was 3999/- inclusive of all taxes and Rs. 2299/- inclusive of all taxes. But opposite party despite having price tag inclusive of all taxes has charged 6.05% (Rs.190.51 paise) tax on readymade garments. The complainant made strong protest to opposite party that price tag display price inclusive of all taxes and charging of taxes on the said product was against the provisions of law. But the opposite party did not care and insisted on charging the tax in addition to the sale price. The complainant has suffered great hardship and it tantamount to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party because the opposite party entitled to charge Rs. 3149/- for garments after 50% discount on Rs. 6298/-. But the opposite party illegally charged Rs. 190.51 paise for VAT on discounted price of Rs. 3149/-. The complainant is a consumer qua the opposite party for due consideration and opposite party is deficient in rendering services, as such complainant is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as defined under section 2(g)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The payment was made at Amritsar and cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against opposite party at Amritsar, therefore, this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint :
(a) Opposite party be directed to immediately refund Rs. 190.51 paise charged excess as Tax ;
(b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses Rs. 5000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that opposite party has charged the complainant as per norms and taxes as applicable on readymade garments. It was denied that complainant has suffered great hardship and it tantamount to gross deficiency on the part of the opposite party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. In his bid to prove the case, Sh. Ravinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint. , copy of invoice Ex.C-2, copy of price tag Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
4. Opposite party did not appear to produce any evidence despite having been opportunities provided to them, as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
5. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. The complainant has reiterated the allegations contained in the complaint vide his affidavit Ex.C-1. The complainant has also produced on record copy of the price tag, which denotes the maximum retail price inclusive of all taxes to be Rs. 3999/- & Rs. 2299/- inclusive of all taxes. As such the opposite party is entitled to charge Rs. 3149/- for garments after 50% discount on Rs. 6298/-. But the opposite party illegally charged Rs. 3340/- instead of Rs. 3149/- . As such the opposite party has charged Rs. 191/- in excess on the pretext of tax. In this regard the opposite party has only stated that opposite party has charged the complainant as per norms and taxes as applicable on readymade garments. But the opposite party has failed to produced on record any norms vide which the opposite party has charged Rs. 191/- in excess, than the price mentioned on the retail tag. The act and conduct of the opposite party proves that it has practised unfair trade practice and it tantamount to gross deficiency in service on its part. The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as the opposite party after filing written version has failed to produce on record any evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant. As such the documentary evidence adduced with the complaint, have been accepted to be correct by the opposite party impliedly.
7. In our considered opinion, the complainant is not only entitled to refund of the amount of Rs. 191/- charged in excess , but he is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- alongwith litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 1000/-. . Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order ; failing which awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of the passing of this order until full and final payment. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 26.7.2017
