Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/554/2015

Sorabh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Winners Sports - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajat Nakra ADv.

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	554 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	29.9.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	30.11.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Sorabh Sharma s/o Narinder Mohan Sharma, R/o House No.94, Phase-IV, Sector 59, Mohali, Punjab. 

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

Winners Sports (A division of FLFL), Elante mall #144, Plot No.178 and 178A, Phase-I, Industrial area, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Rajat Nakra, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Opposite Party exparte.

 

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant visited the Opposite Party on 19.7.2015, where it was offering the products under the brand name of Nike India Pvt. Ltd. with discount of 50% on MRP.  The complainant purchased one bottom wear pants from the Opposite Party store, which was available at MRP of Rs.1995/- (Ann.A-1).  The Opposite Party issued retail invoice dated 19.7.2015 for an amount of Rs.1047/- (Ann.A-2).  It is averred that at the time of payment, the complainant raised the objection relating to the charging of extra VAT @5%, as the cost of product in question is inclusive of all taxes and VAT has already been added to the said cost and the complainant cannot be charged tax on tax, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The Opposite Party did not turn up despite service, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 05.11.2015.

 

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       The ld.Counsel for the complainant at the time of arguments submitted that the complainant on 19.7.2015 purchased a product under the brand name of ‘Nike’ India Pvt. Ltd from Opposite Party, who offered flat 50% discount on MRP.  Further claimed that a Bottom Wear Pants bearing MRP of Rs.1995/- inclusive of taxes was selected by the complainant under the above 50% discount scheme.  It is alleged that the Opposite Party issued retail invoice for an amount of Rs.1047/- whereby the Opposite Party illegally charged extra VAT @5% whereas the cost of the Pants mentioned on the tag is inclusive of all taxes.  The counsel for the complainant further claimed that as the VAT has already been added to the said cost of the Pants, so the complainant cannot be charged tax on tax.  Further, it is claimed that by charging tax on the MRP, the Opposite Party had indulged in unfair trade practice and also rendered deficiency in service not only to the complainant but also to the public at large. 

 

5]       Despite due service of the notice of the complaint, the Opposite Party chose not to appear and thus was proceeded exparte vide order dated 05.11.2015. Thus, all the allegations of the complainant supported by duly sworn affidavit goes unrebutted and unchallenged.

 

6]       We are of the opinion that the allegations of the complainant are valid as the Opposite Party bothered not to appear to show under what rules it had charged Vat on the MRP, which is mentioned on the price tag (Ann.A-1) as “inclusive of all taxes”.

 

7]       In our opinion there is a difference between the remarks “Retail Price” and “Actual Price” of the goods.  The MRP is inclusive of all taxes and a retailer can sell at a price below the MRP (Maximum Retail Price) because MRP is the maximum retail price allowed for that commodity and not the actual price. A retailer can well reduce his margin built into MRP, while on the other hand, the actual price can be about 10 to 15 percent lower than the MRP. Sometimes, the printed MRP is so high that the difference between the selling price and the MRP can be as much as 30 to 50 percent. As it is an offence to sell at a price higher than the marked price, so it is also not legal to charge any tax on the MRP when it is specifically mentioned that “inclusive of all taxes”. 

 

8]       In our opinion, the customer/complainant in the present complaint is liable to pay 5% of the VAT imposed by the Opposite Party if the article is labelled as MRP “exclusive of all taxes”.  But it is quite clear vide Ann.A-1 i.e. price tag of the product in question that the MRP is inclusive of all taxes, so the charging of VAT @5% is clearly unfair trade practice resorted to by the Opposite Party. 

 

9]       Moreover, the Opposite Party has failed to contest the claim of the complainant and proceeded exparte, therefore, all the averments of the complainant go unrebutted.  There is no defence to controvert the allegations of the complainant. 

 

10]     In view of the above observations, we allow the present complaint against Opposite Party and direct it as under:-

a]  To refund the excess amount charged as 5% VAT i.e. Rs.49/-, to the complainant

b]  To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him mental & physical harassment and having indulged into unfair trade practice;

c]  To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/-

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @18% per annum on amount as mentioned at sub-para (a) & (b) above from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

30^th November, 2015                                                                                                                                                               Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-  

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-  

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.554 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 30th day of November, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Party.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member