Haryana

Panchkula

CC/47/2017

SULABH MAHAJAN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SALINA ENTERPRISES. - Opp.Party(s)

SUKAAM GUPTA

27 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	47 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	06.03.2017
Date of Decision	:	27.06.2017

                                                                                          

Sulabh Mahajan, C/o # 1943, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi.

                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Salina Enterprises, DSS 399, Sector-8, Panchkula through its proprietor.

2.       Numero Uno Clothing Ltd., Paras Trade Centre, 6^th floor, Sector-2, Gurgaon, Faridabad, Toll Road, Gurgaon-122003, through its Manager/authorized signatory.

                                                                                        ….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:     Mr.Sukaam Gupta, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Ops already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

 

(Anita Kapoor, Presiding Member)

 

1. The complainant purchased one denim jeans, for himself, for Rs.1578/- from the Op No.1, at discounted price on MRP i.e. 40% through OP No.2, vide retail invoice No.N-2008 dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure C-2). At the time of making the payment, the complainant pointed out that the Op No.1 had charged extra vat on the discounted price. The complainant asked the official of Op No.1 to waive off the extra VAT as the MRP was inclusive of all taxes but the OP No.1 refused to entertain the complaint of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant asked the official of Op NO.1 to provide the notification or any regulation issued validating the charging of VAT in addition to the MRP. OP No.1 could not produce any documentation but told the complainant that it was being done as a practice. Upon this, the complainant refused to purchase the product but the OP No.1 told that the invoice having already been generated, could not be cancelled. The complainant was left with no option, but to pay the billed amount, alongwith excess amount of Rs.74.97/- as VAT. The charging of VAT, as per complainant, amounted to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.
2. Notice was served upon Op No.1 dasti and OP No.2 through registered post. But none entered appearance. The Ops were, proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 17.04.2017.
3. The complainant tendered the evidence, by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 & C-2, and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.
5. It is proved from the Annexure C-2, the Complainant was charged 5% extra VAT of Rs.74.97/- by the Opposite Parties for a denim jean purchased by him on MRP of Rs.1578/- (which was inclusive of all taxes), after giving a discount of 40% under a promotional offer. The complainant asked the Op No.1 to refrain from charging the VAT as MRP was inclusive of all taxes but the OP No.1 refused to agree. Even while not being able to produce any notification or any regulation issued by authority, validating the charging of VAT in addition to the MRP, all that the Op No.1 said was that they charged such VAT from each and every customer as a practice.
6. Moreover, the Ops did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded against ex-parte, which entitles the drawl of an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or to contest the allegations made by the complainant which are taken to be unrebutted and uncontroverted.
7. After giving our thoughtful consideration, we are of the considered opinion 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. Meaning thereby that MRP includes VAT and after discount no VAT can be charged, so on discounted product also VAT cannot be charged if VAT is included in MRP. 
8. The point in controversy was authoritatively decided by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3477 of 2016 titled as “M/s Aero Club (Woodland) Versus Rakesh Sharma”, decided on 04.01.2017, by holding that the charging of the VAT in an identical eventuality amounted to unfair trade practice, as per the definitive provision in the CPA.
9. No judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble National Commission to the contrary is to our notice.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, are directed:-

[a]    To refund excess charged VAT of Rs.74.97/- to the complainant;

[b]    To Pay Rs.2000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]    To Pay Rs.3000/- towards costs of litigation.

11. Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

27.06.2017           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