Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/694/2016

Nipun Ansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s College Shoes (Woodland) - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet Saini Adv.

02 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint  No	:	694 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	01.09.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	02.11.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Nipun Ansal s/o Shiv Kumar Ansal r/o House No.1388, First Floor, SGTB Complex, Sector 70, Mohali.

                             …..Complainant

Versus

 

M/s College Shoes (Woodland), SCO 30, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Manager or Authorized Representative.

­……Opposite Party  

 

 

BEFORE:   SH.RAJAN DEWAN                PRESIDENT

                   MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA         MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)        : Sh.H.S.Saini, Advocate  

For Opposite Party(s)     : Sh.Parveen Kumar, Authorized Agent

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

 

1.           As per the case, the complainant, being enticed by the flat 60% discount offer of the OP on pullovers, purchased two pullovers from it on 15.08.2016 for a sum of Rs.2979.90P, but shocked to see that he was charged Rs.141.90 towards VAT on the discounted price (Ann.C-1). Further, the bill generated also included donation to the UNICEF of Rs.10/- which is arbitrary and the complainant never gave any consent to include such donation in the bill. It is averred that the complainant objected to the same after seeing the bill but the OP forced him to pay the final amount. It has been averred that the OP has no legal right to charge the extra VAT on the MRP which is always inclusive of all taxes.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           The Opposite Party filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case about sale of the goods, charging of VAT after giving discount.  It is stated that the OP has rightly charged the VAT and donation to UNICEF of Rs.10/- was only charged after receiving the due consent of the complainant.  It is pleaded that it has been clearly displayed on the outlet that VAT is payable and the complainant being satisfied about the prices purchased the goods without any resistance. It is stated that the complainant is not aware about the concept of the MRP when discounted prices are offered, it will automatically come out of the ambit of the MRP.   Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the authorized representative of the OP and have also perused the entire record.
5.           After hearing the parties and going through the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter. The complainant has produced on record a copy of the Invoice of the items in question from which it cannot be ascertained that as to whether the MRP of the items in question is inclusive of all the taxes or not.  The complainant has not produced on record the copy of the price tags of the items in question to corroborate the fact that the price of the items in question is inclusive of all the taxes and the OP has illegally charged VAT on the discounted price. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove his case against the OP.
6.           For the reasons recorded above, finding the complaint to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
7.           The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

02.11.2016                                                                   

Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

         

Sd/-

          (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER