Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/296/2017

Jasmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ESS GEE Trendz Retail Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Kumar

29 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/296/2017
Date of Institution	:	05/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	29/06/2017

 

Jasmeet Singh s/o S. Bhupinder Singh r/o House No.505, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Ess Gee Trendz Retail Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory/Principal Employer having its business address at Shop No.08, Ground Floor, DT Mall, IT Park, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Party

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	PRITI MALHOTRA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Navneet Jindal, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Daljit Singh, Counsel for complainant.
	:	OP ex-parte

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a denim jean from the OP vide bill dated 14.2.2017. The MRP of the product, inclusive of all taxes, was Rs.2,195/- on which the OP offered discount of 30%.  After reducing the discount amount, the net payable amount came to Rs.1,536.50 only, but, the OP by illegally and arbitrarily adding VAT @ 5% of Rs.76.83 on the said amount, charged an amount of Rs.1,613/- from the complainant which was paid by him. As per the complainant, charging of VAT on discounted items/products, when it was specifically stated/advertised that the same were offered under sale having discount of flat 30% on MRP, is totally illegal and unjustified. Alleging that the aforesaid act amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.  
2.         OP did not appear, despite due service, therefore, it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 29.5.2017.
3.         The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the learned proxy counsel for the complainant.
5.         From a perusal of the record it becomes evident that the complainant did purchase a product “8907222418823” from the OP vide invoice dated 14.2.2017 which was having MRP of Rs.2,195/-. After giving discount of 30% on the said product, the total amount payable came to Rs.1,536.50 only, but, the OP illegally charged an amount of Rs.1,613/- from the complainant by adding Rs.76.83 as VAT.  The complainant has filed a duly sworn affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as despite due service, the OP did not opt to appear and contest the claim of the complainant which also amounts to implied admission of the claim.
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 OP in charging VAT on the discounted price clearly proves deficiency in service on its part.  As such, the OP 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 ex-parte.  The OP is directed as under :-

(i)     To refund to the complainant Rs.76.83 (say Rs.77/-) being the amount of VAT wrongly charged from him;

(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 OP 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 @ 9% 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.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
29/06/2017	[Priti Malhotra]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member