DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.30 of 07-02-2017

Decided on 18-04-2017

Rahul Goyal S/o Amrit Pal Goyal R/o House No.1597A, St.No.3, Nai Basti, Bathinda-151001.

........Complainant

Versus

The Manager Levis, Shop No.131, Mittal City Mall, Bathinda.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Rahul Goyal in person.

Opposite party: Ex-parte.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Rahul Goyal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party The Manager Levis (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he visited outlet of opposite party on 6.2.2017 and purchased one jean vide bill No.1204. Its M.R.P was Rs.2999/- and on this M.R.P, 30% discount was displayed. After that VAT @ 6.05% was charged on the price. The bill shows the VAT @ 6.05% being charged extra on the printed M.R.P whereas M.R.P is inclusive of all taxes. Therefore, it is unfair and deficient on the part of opposite party.

3. It is alleged that as per M.R.P Act, 2006, M.R.P is inclusive of tax. Under the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, VAT is leviable on sale consideration received or receivable. Therefore, price of the product after discount was to be Rs.2099.30/-, but after tax, it amounted to Rs.2226/-. The complainant made payment through his debit card. Opposite party has charged Rs.126.70/- extra from the complainant. The complainant has claimed that opposite party is liable to refund the amount of Rs.126.70/- alongwith interest @ 18% from 6.2.2017 till actual realization. He has also prayed for litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

4. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it.

5. Complainant was asked to produce evidence.

6. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of bill, (Ex.C1); photocopy of price tag, (Ex.C2); his affidavit dated 7.2.2017, (Ex.C3); photocopy of payment slip, (Ex.C4) and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully.

8. The complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by the complainant that the price tag, (Ex.C2) proves that M.R.P of jean was Rs.2999/- including all taxes. Therefore, opposite party was not entitled to charge VAT extra. Although, in invoice, (Ex.C1), it is mentioned that VAT will be charged extra during the discount period, but this Clause is not applicable as M.R.P of product included all taxes. Opposite party has not come forward to rebut the claim of the complainant and to justify the charges of VAT extra. Therefore, evidence of the complainant is unrebutted. There is no reason to discard this evidence.

   To support his contentions, the complainant has cited following decisions:-

   i) Decision dated 4.1.2017 of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in R.P No.3477 of 2016 M/s Aero Club (Woodland) Vs. Rakesh Sharma;

   ii) Decision of Hon'ble U.T, Chandigarh rendered in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, Decided on 1.9.2015 Shoppers Stop through its chief Executive Officer. Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill;

   iii) Decision dated 23,5,2016 of Hon'ble State Commission, U.T, Chandigarh M/s ADI Sports Vs. Shyam Sunder Sharma in Appeal No.101 of 2016.

9. We have given careful consideration to these submissions and gone through the cases law cited by complainant.

10. The complainant has pleaded that he has purchased jean from opposite party vide bill No.1204 dated 6.2.2017. Copy of invoice, (Ex.C1) proves this fact. This invoice also proves that the complainant was given discount of Rs.899.70/- and thereafter VAT @ 6.05 % was charged extra, which was amounting to Rs.127.01/-. Of-course, terms and conditions mentioned in the invoice reveal that VAT will be charged extra during discount period. Therefore, point for determination is whether opposite party can charge VAT extra after discount or not.

11. In case of ADI Sports (Supra), version of appellant (opposite party) before District Forum was that VAT was to be charged extra from the customer and this fact was also mentioned in the notice put on front window glass of store. The observations of Hon'ble State Commission recorded in Paragraph 12 of judgment are helpful to solve the controversy. For sake of convenience, same is reproduced as under:-

    “12) We are satisfied that once it is mentioned on a label put on the T-shirts that MRP includes the taxes imposed. Then after giving discount, it was not open to the appellant to tax the goods again. For adopting the said procedure, nothing has been brought on record by the appellant, to say that levy was justified. Probably double taxation is not permissible. The appellant. Thus, adopted unfair trade practice, on that count. The amount of Rs.79.47P was charged in excess by the appellant, from respondent No.1. When granting relief to respondent No.1, an amount of Rs.15,000/- was allowed, on account of unfair trade practice, having been adopted by the appellant. We have seen no document on record, providing the case of the appellant and as such, no interference is required to be made, in the order under challenge, on this count.”

    In the case in hand also, the price tag, (Ex.C2) reveals that M.R.P of product is mentioned as Rs.2999/-, which is inclusive of all taxes. Therefore, even if, the VAT was payable, it was to be included in the M.R.P and opposite party has offered 30% discount on M.R.P. The charging of VAT extra is not justified and it amounts to unfair trade practice.

12. Now coming to the quantum of relief. The complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, but there is no detail how the complainant has calculated this amount. Moreover it is well settled that compensation should neither be excessive nor too meagre, it must commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case. The consumer Forum is not meant to enrich the consumers, at the hand of service providers by awarding excessive compensation. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, cost and compensation to the tune of Rs.3000/- is considered reasonable and justified.

13. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party. Opposite party is required to refund Rs.127.09/- charged as VAT to the complainant.

14. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    18-04-2017

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member