DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.642 of 2017

                                                 Date of institution:  23.08.2017                                                      Date of decision   :  09.05.2018

Meenakshi Sharma aged 25 years daughter of Shri Subash Chander, resident of House No.2118, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.

…….Complainant

Vs

Woodland, Aero Club, Zirakpur – Square Mall, Shop No.05, Paras Down Town Square Mall, Zirakpur through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.

                                                                ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Ms. Hemlata Issar, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Bhuwan Bhatt, Store Manager on behalf of OP.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant alongwith her friends after visiting shop of OP at Zirakpur, purchased Woodland shoes mentioning MRP on the tag as Rs.2,495/- (inclusive of all taxes). Discount of 40% was offered and thereafter the discounted price was Rs.1,497/-. However, complainant had to pay Rs.1,710/- because of charging of VAT of amount of Rs.214/-. Despite request, Store Manager of the OP refused to return overcharged amount and that is why this complaint for direction to OP to pay compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.20,000/- alongwith actual financial loss of Rs.214/-. Litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- more claimed.

2.             In reply it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint in the present form is not maintainable because same has been filed just for harassing OP and for extracting money. Goods sold by OP were sold in discount scheme. OP has not charged any amount more than the disclosed scheme and as such allegation of adoption of unfair trade practice denied. Even allegations of charging of VAT twice are denied. As and when consumer purchases a product under scheme, then he goes out of declaration of MRP, which serves only the basis for calculation of sale consideration.  It is claimed that complainant has failed to understand the concept of MRP. Charging of VAT on the discounted price alleged to be as per scheme. As per law of VAT, consumer makes payment of MRP, but after payment of VAT, sale consideration gets reduced by the amount of taxes payable. As and when sales on discount of 40% offered, then for determining the price, VAT has to be charged extra. Complainant was explained by OP, the VAT law as applicable and she was satisfied. Complainant agreed and opted to purchase the shoes after understanding the scheme. Now the complaint alleged to be filed as an afterthought for abusing process of law. For redressal of grievance of overcharging of VAT, remedy available with complainant is to approach the VAT Commissioner. There is no provision of prepaid taxes. There is complete transparency because OPs clearly mentioned the discount and payment of VAT, while offering scheme. Other averments of the complaint denied except that of purchase of shoes in question through retail invoice/cash memo dated 14.06.2017 and that of charging of VAT of Rs.214/-.

3.             Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith document Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and thereafter her counsel closed evidence. On the other hand Shri Bhuwan Bhatt, Store Manager of the OP tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and thereafter closed evidence. 

4.             Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Undisputedly the product in question was having MRP of Rs.2,495/-. Copy of the tag Ex.C-2 also produced by complainant to establish that MRP of Rs.2,495/- was inclusive of all taxes. Admittedly discount of 40% was offered and after discount the price of the product was Rs.1,496.93 N.P. It was on this discounted price of Rs.14,96.93 N.P. that VAT of Rs.214.07 N.P. was charged for claiming Rs.1,710.93 N.P.  from complainant.  All this is borne from copy of invoice Ex.C-1. So it is obvious that though MRP was inclusive of all taxes, but OP charged VAT on the discounted price. Practice of charging VAT on the discounted price of a product having MRP (inclusive of all taxes) has been deprecated by terming the same as unfair trade practice  by  Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as M/s Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma bearing Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 as well as in case bearing First Appeal No.136 of 2017 titled as M/s Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju decided on 23.05.2017 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh. Being so certainly OP adopted unfair trade practice by charging VAT on the discounted price. Submission of representative of OP to the contrary has no force.

6.             Though it is claimed by representative of OP through his affidavit and oral submissions that complainant was disclosed about the scheme of charging VAT extra on the discounted price, but despite that the same is not a term and condition printed on the back of invoice Ex.C-1 or on the tag Ex.C-2. Even no material produced to show that practice of charging VAT on the discounted price was made known to customers visiting show room of OP. No display advertisement in that respect on conspicuous place shown to be put up and as such allegation regarding disclosure to complainant regarding charging of VAT on the discounted price is afterthought version. As OP adopted unfair trade practice in this case as held above and as such complainant suffered mental tension and agony and stood dragged to this litigation and as such she is entitled to reasonable amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

7.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP to refund excess charged amount of Rs.214.07 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 14.06.2017 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against  OP.  Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

May 09, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member