BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                             

Yogesh Kumar S/o Shri Shadi Ram Yadav, R/o House No. 64, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh U.T.

                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Adidas Sachdeva & Company, SCO 394, Sector 8, Panchkula, Haryana.

2.       Adidas India Marketing Private Limited, Office No. 6, 2^nd Floor, Sector-B, Pocket No. 7, Plot No. 11, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                 Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Presiding Member.

Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Member.

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

                             Mr. Manoj Lakhotia, Advocate for Ops No. 1 and 2.

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Presiding Member)

1. On 23.12.2016, the complainant purchased a pair of shoes, Adidas make from OP No. 1, vide Sale Invoice No. SC 2549. The purchase made at discounted price of 40% on the MRP, was paid for through HDFC Bank Debit Card. However, the complainant found that he had been billed in excess in as much as OP No. 1 has charged him VAT @ 5% and Surcharge on VAT @ 9.75%. The MRP being inclusive of all taxes in terms of the RBI Guidelines formulated following demonetization, no surcharge was payable of any kind of purchases made during upto 31.03.2017.

When telephonic contact established by the complainant with OP No. 1 on 27.12.2016 (at No.18001203300) did not yield, outcome, he mailed a complaint on 28.12.2016 to obtain clarification about the chargeability of VAT. The OP No. 1 replied that VAT had been charged as per Government Policy.

2. The complainant filed this complaint with the grievance that the charging of VAT in addition to the MRP been a deficiency in service, the Ops are liable therefor.
3. The Ops contested the complaint by challenging its very maintainability. The averment made by the complainant about his having found excessive billing later on was controverted by alleging that the payment having been made through a Debit Card, the billed amount had come to the notice of the complainant there itself. While denying the entitlement of the complainant to the refund of the amount charged at VAT, the Ops averred that VAT was chargeable even on the MRP i.e. the VAT amount had to be paid by a customer in addition to the price.  
4. The complainant tendered the evidence, by way of affidavit Annexure C-A, alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3, and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered the evidence, by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A, and Annexure RW2/A, and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the Ops and have perused the record.
6. The core point under adjudication is the entitlement or otherwise of the Ops to charge VAT in addition to the MRP.
7. An identical issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 (M/s Aero Club –Woodland versus Rakesh Sharma –decided on 04.01.2017), the Hon’ble State Consumer Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No.3723 of 2011 (the Branch Manager, M/s Shirt Palace Branch, Black Bird Showroom vs. Chandru H.C. –decided on 16.01.2014, and before the Hon’ble State Consumer Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in Appeal No. 210 of 2015 (Shoppers. and others vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and others – decided on 01.09.2015 and Appeal No.61 of 2016 (Benetton Indian Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ravinderjit Singh-decided on 18.02.2016).

The view recorded by the Hon’ble National Commission and the State Commissions was that the charging of extra VAT in addition to MRP amounts to an unfair trade practice.

8. During the course of hearing, our attention was not invited on behalf of the Ops to any law to the contrary.
9. Whether the charging of VAT came to the notice of the complainant at the time of purchase itself or later on is hardly relevant to the determination of the controversy herein, particularly when the complaint has been filed within the period of limitation.
10. While, thus, holding that the Ops are accountable for an unfair trade practice and allowing the complaint, we would order that:

(a)  The Ops shall refund the VAT amounted to Rs. 204.72/- to the complainant;

(b) The Ops shall pay an amount of Rs. 500/- as compensation for the mental harassment caused to the complainant; and

(c)The Ops shall pay an amount of Rs. 3000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

11. The liability of the Ops to pay the amount of compensation shall be joint and several.
12. The Ops shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to them comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

  Announced

  22.08.2017         JAGMOHAN SINGH             ANITA KAPOOR

                             MEMBER                               PRESIDING MEMBER               

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                                         ANITA KAPOOR

                                                          PRESIDING MEMBER