Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/111/2017

Shubham Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager United Colors of Benetton - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Anirudh Gupta Adv.

10 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint  No	:	111 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	01.02.2017
Date   of   Decision		10.04.2017

 

 

 

 

Shubham Sood s/o Smt.Anita Sood r/o H.No. Set No.3, Durga Village, Upper Kaithu, Shimla-171003.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

The Manager, United Colors of Benetton, ADI Sports, Shop No.38-A, Ground Floor, Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh

….. Opposite Party

(2)

Consumer Complaint  No	:	112 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	01.02.2017
Date   of   Decision		10.04.2017

 

 

 

Anirudh Gupta s/o Sh.Rajesh Gupta r/o H.No.1140, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

The Manager, United Colors of Benetton, ADI Sports, Shop No.38-A, Ground Floor, Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:    SH.RAJAN DEWAN                     PRESIDENT

                SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA                 MEMBER

                SH.RAVINDER SINGH                 MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY: Complainant in person.

                Sh.Sumeet Goel, Adv. for the OP.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         By dint of this common order, we propose to dispose of the above mentioned two connected consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2.         The facts are gathered from Consumer Complaint No.111 of 2017-Shubham Sood Vs. The Manager, United Colors of Benetton.
3.         In brief, the case of the complainant is that the OP, in order to promote the sale of its products, offered discount @ 50% on the M.R.P. and he purchased a shirt which was available at the MRP of 3099/-  for Rs.1626.98P vide Retail Invoice dated 31.01.2017, Annexure C-1.  However, he was shocked to see the Invoice dated 31.01.2017 that a sum of Rs.77.48P was charged towards VAT @ 5% on the discounted price.  It has been averred that the cost of the item was already inclusive of all taxes. He objected to the charging of 5% VAT at the cost of the item but to no effect.  It has been averred that the OP has no legal right to charge the VAT on the MRP which is always inclusive of all the 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.
4.         The OP filed its reply by way of affidavit and took preliminary objections inter alia that the complaint was filed by suppressing the material facts; that the Forum does  not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the pricing issue and the issue covered under the VAT Act; that the allegations made in the complaint cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceedings; that the complaint is not maintainable as it fails to bring on record any document to prove mis-representation on the part of the OP;  It has further been pleaded that a discounted price does not become a New MRP that ought to be inclusive of all taxes as is being alleged by the complainant. It has further been pleaded that the MRP is purely a valuable consideration received against the sale of product.  It has been pleaded that  the complainant was informed about the applicability of the terms and conditions on the discounted price and it was only after accepting the said terms and conditions that the complainant purchased the product in question. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned Counsel for the OP and have also perused the record.
7.         After hearing the complainant, in person,  the Counsel for the OP 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 item in question from which it cannot be ascertained that as to whether the MRP of the item(s) in question is inclusive of all the taxes or not.  The complainant has not produced on record a copy of the price tag of the item in question to corroborate the fact that the price of the item in question is inclusive of all the taxes and that the OP has illegally charged VAT on the discounted price. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove his case against the OP.
8.         Similar facts have been pleaded in another connected complaint and similar evidence has been led in it. 
9.         For the reasons recorded above, finding both the complaints to be devoid of any merit, the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
10.         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

10.04.2017

Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER