DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.186 of 2016
Date of institution: 05.08.2016 Date of decision : 17.01.2017
Hitesh Jindal, House No.1441-A, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
Woodland; Aero Club (Woodland Store) SCF 82, Phase-7, Mohali through its Manager.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Present: Shri Nikunj Dhawan, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Parveen Kumar, Area Sales Manager of the OP.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Hitesh Jindal, resident of House No.1441-A, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant purchased a jacket from the OP vide bill 26.01.2016. The basic price of the jacket was Rs.7,071/- and after adding VAT @ 6.05% to the tune of Rs.424/- the MRP of the jacket was Rs.7495/-. The OP had offered 40% discount on the MRP. However, at the time of billing the OP charged an amount of Rs.4769/- which is inclusive of VAT @ 6.05% to the tune of Rs.272/-. As per the complainant the price of the jacket after discount of 40% on MRP of Rs.7,495/- should have been Rs.4,497/- as the OP has already added VAT @ 6.05% on the basic price of Rs.7,071/-. Again levying of VAT @ 6.05% to the tune of Rs.272/- on the discounted price is unfair trade price on the part of the OP for which the complainant has suffered mental and physical harassment. Hence the complaint for giving direction to the OP to refund to the complainant Rs.272/- charged as VAT; to pay him Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment; Rs.20,000/- each on account of deterrent and punitive damages and Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.
2. The OP has pleaded in the preliminary objections of the written statement that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as it has not charged any amount more than the scheme within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. The moment the purchaser availed the scheme of discount on price, he is out from the concept of MRP. The terminology MRP serves only the basis for calculation of net sale consideration subject to payment of VAT. The complainant has failed to understand the concept of MRP and discount offered as basis of determining the price with condition of VAT to be charged extra. The complainant is also not aware of meaning of MRP under Standard Weight & Measurement Act read with packed Commodities Rules. The OP had floated a scheme that 40% discount on MRP in woodland product with condition of payment of VAT extra. Thus denying any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copy of bill Ex.C-1. In rebuttal, the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Parveen Kumar its authorised representative Ex.OP-1/1 and advertisement Ex.OP-1.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the MRP of the jacket was Rs.7495/- on which 40% discount was offered by the OP. However, the OP after giving discount on MRP again charged VAT from the complainant which is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on its part.
5. On the other hand, authorized representative of the OP has argued that the VAT on the discounted price has rightly been charged as it was clearly mentioned in the advertisement Ex.OP-1 that the VAT will be extra. Thus, there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant, authorised representative of the OP and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments, we find that there is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant. It is well established from the invoice Ex.C-1 that the basic price of the jacket was Rs.7,071/- on which VAT @ 6.05% was levied by the OP. The MRP of the jacket came out to be Rs.7,495/-. The OP had offered discount of 40% on the MRP. However, the OP has again charged VAT @ 6.05% to the tune of Rs.272/- on the discounted price of Rs.4,497/-. However, in our view when MRP is inclusive of all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. Here we are fortified by the similar view taken by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No.3723 of 2011 titled as The Branch Manager M/s. Shirt Palace Branch Black Bird Showroom Vs. Chandru H.C. decided on 16.01.2014. A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015 decided on 01.09.2015 in case titled as Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and others.
7. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the aforestated case law, we find that charging of VAT on the discounted price by the OP is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence we direct the OP to refund to the complainant Rs.272/- (Rs. Two hundred seventy two only) i.e. excess charges of VAT and to pay him a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
The OP is also directed to comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount till its realization
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 11.01.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 17.01.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
