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

Consumer Complaint No.501 of 2017

                                                Date of institution:  14.07.2017                                             Date of decision   :  01.08.2018

Puneet Vinayak wife of  Brij Mohan, resident of # 135, PUDA Colony, Green Avenue, Amritsar 143001.

…….Complainant

Vs

Woodland Aero Club, Zirakpur, Chaura Bazaar Main,  SCO No.2209, Khata No.59/58, Khasra No.647, VPO Bishangarh, Zirakpur, Mohali (Near Best Price) Punjab through its Manager or  Authorised representative.

                                                            ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.   

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     None for the parties.

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

Order

               Complainant purchased a product having MRP of Rs.1,720/- inclusive of all taxes from OP on 02.06.2017. After giving discount @ 20%, price of the product was Rs.1,376.69 N.P., but OP charged Rs.1,460/- including VAT amount of  Rs.83.31 N.P. @ 6.05%. That practice of charging VAT on the discounted price alleged to be unfair trade practice and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of extra charged amount of Rs.83.31 N.P. with interest @ 18% per annum. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.25,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- more claimed.

2.             In reply filed by OP, it is claimed that complaint has been filed just for harassing OP with a view to extract money from him. Charging of VAT alleged to be in accordance with law. The moment customer purchases a product by availing 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 concept of MRP. Charging of extra VAT on the discounted price is as per practice, and this Forum alleged to be having no jurisdiction. As per law of VAT, customer makes payment of MRP, but for payment of VAT, the sale consideration gets reduced by the amount of payable tax. Admittedly discount @ 20% was offered. However, it is claimed that complainant was explained by OP about the applicable VAT and thereafter she being satisfied, purchased the product in question. Complainant has no cause of action because she should have approached the VAT Commissioner. Discount scheme announced for clearance of stocks. There is no provision for prepaid tax, where the party claims that tax has already been paid. MRP under Standard Weight & Measurement Act is fixed, but the said Act has been repelled. OP has not charged the tax twice. Burden of payment of VAT or any other tax lies on the customer, even if there is offer of discount because MRP is only meant for placing restrictions on the retailers, so that he may charge the price in excess of the one mentioned on the goods. OP through leading newspapers and other displays on the show room has clarified that VAT/tax to be charged extra on the discounted price. Purchase of the product not denied, but other averments of the complaint denied by claiming that SLP (C) No.8868 of 2017 has already been admitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 31.03.2017.

3.             Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and
Ex.C-2 thereafter her counsel closed evidence. On the other hand Shri Khem Narain, representative of OP tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and thereafter closed evidence. 

4.             Thereafter none appeared on many dates and as such after perusing the file, case is decided through this order.

5.             Complainant has produced on record her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith tag Ex.C-2 for establishing that MRP of Rs.1,720/- was inclusive of all taxes. Admittedly after giving discount, VAT has been charged on the discounted price as per contents of written statement. Perusal of invoice Ex.C-1 reveals that VAT of amount of Rs.83.31 N.P. has been charged on the product sold by OP to complainant on 02.06.2017 and as such it is obvious that VAT has been charged on the discounted price, despite the fact that MRP was inclusive of all taxes.  Practice of charging extra VAT on the discounted price certainly is unfair trade practice because the same has been deprecated 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.  Ratio of both these cases fully applicable to the facts of the present case. No law to the contrary produced except that judgment in case of M/s. Aero Club (Woodland) Vs. Rakesh Sharma (supra) has been challenged in Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave Petition No.8868 of 2017. Provisions of Order 41 Rule 5 CPC provide that mere filing of appeal does not amount to stay of operation of order under challenge in appeal. On the same analogy, it has to be held that the operation of order of Hon’ble National Commission passed in M/s. Aero Club (Woodland) Vs. Rakesh Sharma (supra) has not been stayed till date. Being so, that order passed by the highest authority under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has to be followed by this Forum, being subordinate to the Hon’ble National Commission. So, virtually charging of VAT amount extra is an act of unfair trade practice, which had been deprecated by the Hon’ble National Commission in above cited case.

6.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to OP to refund excess charged amount of Rs.83.31 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 02.06.2017 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

August 01, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                       (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member