DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.40 of 29.1.2019
Decided on: 12.9.2019
Bharat Dawar S/o Sh.Ashok Kumar, R/o House No.1263, Sector -34/C, Chandigarh.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Cobb Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.S.C.O.14, 10, Bhupinder Nagar Road, Patiala through its Proprietor/Managing Director/Authorized signatory.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt.Inderjeet Kaur, Member
Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member
ARGUED BY
Sh.Sahil Dawar,Adv. counsel for complainant.
Sh.Sandeep Gupta, Advocate with
Sh.Desh Raj, authorized representative of the OP.
ORDER
B.S.DHALIWAL,MEMBER
Sh. Bharat Dawar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), has filed this complaint against Cobb Apparels Pvt. Ltd.,(hereinafter referred to as the OP).
Briefly, the case of the complainant is that the OP in order to promote the sale of the products manufactured by themoffered 40% discount on M.R.P. on 10.6.2017. The complainant purchased one pair of shocksof “COBB Originals” vide invoice/memo No.B585-0001239 dated 10.6.2017. The M.R.P. of the socks pair was Rs.100/- (inclusive of all taxes) as printed on the price tag.The payment of net amount of Rs.64.00 was made in cash. It came to the notice of the complainant that OP charged VAT extra on the items purchased by him .The gross bill amount of the said item after 40% discount comes to Rs.60/- while OP has charged Rs.03.63 (rounding Rs.4/-) as VAT extra, illegally on the sale price after discount. The complainant has been charged VAT since MRP included VAT. The OP has charged tax on tax which is not only illegal but it amounts to an unfair trade practice as given in Section 2(1)( c) (i) & (iv) of the C.P.Act. The complainant prayed for the refund of the amount charged extra on account of VAT and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.40,000/- for causing mental agony and harassmentand Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation. Hence this complaint.
2.Upon notice, OP appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply. In the reply, preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the complainant is not a consumer and VAT can be charged as per the Govt. of Punjab notification. It is also alleged that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint since there is specific condition on the cash memo “subject to the Delhi jurisdiction”. Therefore, the OP is not doing any act which is against law .
On merits, it is stated that since no excess amount has been charged by the OP so no question of its refund arises.After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3.The parties were offered opportunity to produce their evidence.
4.The ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant,Ex.C1 tag of the article, Ex.C2, bill and closed the evidence.
5.Sh.Desh Raj, authorized representative of the OP tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his own affidavit, Ex.OP1 copy of authority letter,Ex.C2 copy of notification and closed the evidence.
6.We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7.Parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.It is further submitted by the complainant that the bill, Ex.C2 was issued by the OPon 10.6.2017. It proves that the complainant purchased the aforesaid item from the OP. Admittedly the OP has charged the VAT. The tag Ex. C1 shows the MRP is Rs.100/-. It is well settled that the MRP includes all the taxes etc. Even otherwise the OP has pleaded thatthe OP can charge VATin case of discount. Therefore, the only conclusion is that the OP illegally has charged the amount under the garb of VAT, which amounts to unfair trade practice.As far as the issue of jurisdiction , Section 11( c ) envisages that the District Forum shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint if the cause of action wholly or in part arise in it’s jurisdiction. In the instant case the complainanthas purchased the pair of socks from the retailer who carries on business at shop No.SCO 14, Bhupinder Nagar Road, Patiala. As such the cause of action had arisen at Patiala. Therefore, this Forum is competent to decide the complaint.
8.Now coming to the question regarding compensation. The complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.60,000/-. Legal position regarding amount of compensation has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, National Commission and State Commission in number of authorities. In latest judgment titled as Chief Administrative Huda Chief Administrative Huda & Anr. Vs. Shakuntla Devi, pronounced by theHon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Paragraph No.12 of this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under:-
“12) the sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof of loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of opposite party. Once the said conditions are satisfied, the Consumer Forum would have to decide the quantum of compensation to which the consumer is entitled. There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury. There is a duty cast on the Consumer Forum to take into account all relevant factors for arriving at the compensation to be paid”.
9.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is allowed.OP is ordered to payRs.3000/- as cost & compensation to the complainant, within the period of two months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
10.The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:12.9.2019
B.S.Dhaliwal Inderjeet Kaur
Member Member
