STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

Benetton India Private Limited, through its authorized signatory Sh.Sundeep Kumar Chugh, son of Shri Rameshwar Dass Chugh, aged about 46 years, Office at Plot No.25, Block-B, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurugram, Haryana, 122 001.

2^nd Address

Benetton India Private Limited having its shop at M/s J.K. Store, SCO No.106-107, Sector-17-C, Chandigarh (UT.)

                                                                                                                                                                                          …Appellant

                                         V e r s u s

Raghav Goel S/o Sh. Rajeev Goel, resident of #3296, Sector-15-D, Chandigarh. .

...Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against   order dated 30.11.2016 passed by                   District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II,              U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.586/2016..

Argued by:    Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the appellant.  

 BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                    MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                    MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                   Appellant/Opposite Party has filed this appeal  against order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), allowing a complaint filed by the respondent/complainant.

 2.          As per admitted facts on record, the respondent/complainant purchased two articles from the appellant on 28.7.2016 with Maximum Retail Price of Rs.1599/- and Rs.1899/- respectively. 50% discount was offered by the appellant on the  price of above said articles.  However, when preparing the bill, on the discounted MRP, Value Added Tax was imposed.   

3.            Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellant/OP. Many preliminary objections were taken qua maintainability of the complaint before the Forum. It was further  said that no unfair trade practice was adopted, as alleged.    It was also stated that when giving discount on MRP of selected items, it was displayed on the notice board that on the discounted price, VAT will be extra charged.  It was alleged that  the amount so charged, was payable to the government. Stating that the complaint has been  filed to get   illegitimate benefit, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.   

4.               Both  the parties led  evidence.  The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint granting following relief to the respondent/complainant ;

 a]  To refund Rs.87.46 i.e. for charging extra VAT on the                 discounted product having MRP inclusive of all taxes;

 b]  To pay an amount of Rs.1500/- to the complainant                       towards compensation for deficient services as well on            account of unfair trade practice;

c]  To pay Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses to the                               complainant.

                   It was further  directed that in terms of the order, referred to above, the amount awarded  be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of order , failing which, the amount awarded was to entail penal interest.

5.           The order passed by the Forum, is in consonance with the judgments of this Commission in the following cases, as such, no interference is required ;

                 (i)   Shoppers Stop and others Versus Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others, First Appeal NO.210 of 2015 decided on 1.9.2015.

                 (ii)  Benetton India Private Limited Vs. Ravinderjit Singh, Appeal No.61 of 2016 decided on 18.2.2016.

                 (iii)  Mother Care Reha Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kunal Kinra,  Appeal No.261 of 2016  decided on 20.9.2016.

                 (iv)  M/s Aero Club (woodland)   Vs  Harpreet Singh, Appeal No.318 of 2016 decided on 1.12.2016

                (v)  Ethinicity Vs Heena Aggarwal, Appeal No.331 of 2016 decided on 2.1.2017

5.               Furthermore, as amount involved  is so meagre, it is not necessary to interfere in the order, under challenge. It was so said by the  Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the case titled as CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICINAL & AROMATICS PLANTS (CIMAP) & ANR Versus  JAGDISH SINGH, Revision  Petition No.3094  of 2014 decided on 14.3.2016

6.             Counsel for the appellant failed to show anything contrary which may persuade us to interfere in the order under challenge.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District  Forum is upheld.

8.            Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

9.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

31.01.2017

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                                                                                           (DEV RAJ)                                                                                                                                                                                                 MEMBER

(PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

Js