Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/810/2017

Sukhwinder Singh Manchanda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adidas - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Inder Singh

10 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/810/2017
Date of Institution	:	15/11/2017
Date of Decision	:	10/04/2018

 

Sukhwinder Singh S/o Gurdip Singh Manchanda, resident of H.No. 92, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Adidas C/o Sammati, SCO 6, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative.

……Opposite Party

CORAM :	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

       

PRESENT:	:	Sh. Ravi Inder Singh, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Manoj Lakhotia, Counsel for Opposite Party.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that on 21.01.2017, the complainant purchased Tracktop of Adidas from Opposite Party vide invoice Annexure C-1. The MRP of the product was Rs.3999/- on which the Opposite Party offered discount of 40% and the amount after discount came to Rs.2399/-. However, Opposite Party illegally levied VAT @ 5% i.e. Rs.119.97/- on the said amount and charged the net amount of Rs.2519/-.  Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         The Opposite Party in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix of the case. However, it has been averred that the complainant was fully aware of the terms & conditions before purchasing the product in issue and after knowing about the discount offer and after being fully aware of the terms & conditions on which the discount offer could be availed, the Complainant after due application of mind and accepted the terms & conditions of the answering Opposite Party by duly paying the consideration amount without any protest whatsoever. It has been urged that the goods in question were not sold at the MRP rather on the discounted price and the VAT was rightly levied. It has been denied that the Opposite Party has committed any illegality in charging VAT. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the entire evidence, and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for Parties.
5.         From a perusal of the record, it becomes evident that the complainant did purchase a product having MRP of Rs.3999/-. Further, it is evident from the invoice dated 21.01.2017 that after giving discount on the said product, the total amount payable came to Rs.2399/- only, but, the Opposite Party illegally charged an amount of Rs.2519/- from the complainant by adding Rs.119.97/- as VAT. The Opposite Party has failed to substantiate its act either through some Govt. notification or case law. When MRP included all the taxes, charging of VAT on the discounted price would amount to indulging in unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
6.      The simple question for determination in the present case is whether MRP includes all taxes, including VAT, and whether, after discount, VAT can be charged or not? A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 1.9.2015 in case titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Versus Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others”, wherein it has been held that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. In another decision in Appeal No.61 of 2016, decided on 18.02.2016, in case titled as “Benetton India Private Limited Vs. Ravinderjit Singh”, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant (Benetton India Pvt. Limited) has held that if it is clearly mentioned as MRP inclusive of all taxes, charging of extra VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice. The ratio of above stated pronouncements is squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, the act of the Opposite Party in charging VAT on the discounted price clearly proves deficiency in service on its part.  As such, the Opposite Party is liable to refund the excess amount of VAT besides compensation for mental agony, physical pain and litigation expenses to the complainant.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  The Opposite Party is directed as under :-

(i)    To refund to the complainant Rs.119.97P (say Rs.120/-) being the amount of VAT wrongly charged;

(ii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)  To pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.

8.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

10^th April, 2018                                           

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”