State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Aero Club vs Shifali Mahajan on 29 August, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UT CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. A/244/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/06/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/200/2016 of District DF-II) 1. M/s Aero Club Chandigarh ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Shifali Mahajan Chandigarh ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jasbir Singh PRESIDENT DEV RAJ MEMBER PADMA PANDEY MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 29 Aug 2016 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 244 of 2016 Date of Institution : 24.08.2016 Date of Decision : 29.08.2016 M/s Aero Club, through its Manager, Shop No.19, Ground Floor, DT Mall IT Park, Chandigarh. .....Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Shifali Mahajan D/o Sh. S.C. Mahajan, R/o 203/1, C.H.B. Flats, Sector 55, Chandigarh .....Respondent/Complainant Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Rajesh Mahna, Advocate for the appellant.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.06.2016 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Party, as under:-
"13. For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party not only for resorting to unfair trade practice but also for the deficiency in service towards the complainant and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed as under:-
a] To refund the excess amount charged as 5% VAT i.e. Rs.77.85/-, from the complainant b] To pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him mental & physical harassment on account of deficiency in service and having indulged into unfair trade practice;
c] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2,500/-
This order shall be complied with by the Opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum on amount as mentioned at sub-para (a) & (b) above from the date of this order till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses."
The facts in brief, are that, the complainant purchased one shirt of MRP of Rs.2,595/- for Rs.1,635/- vide invoice dated 08.05.2016 (Annexure C-2). In order to promote the sale of the products, the appellant offered discount @ 50% on the M.R.P.. It was stated by the complainant that he was shocked to see the invoice dated 08.05.2016 that a sum of Rs.77.85 was charged towards VAT @ 5%. It was further stated that the Opposite Party wrongly charged the VAT twice on price after discount because price after discount is already inclusive of VAT, as the price tag mentioned that it was inclusive of all taxes (Annexure C-1). It was further stated that she requested the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.77.85 deducted on account of VAT, but it refused to do so. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, against the Opposite Party.
The Opposite Party filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case that the complainant has purchased the shirt, in question, and it had charged VAT @ 5%. It was stated that the display board and advertisement clearly make public know that 40% to 50% discount are only for the purpose of allowing the reduction, but it is subject to payment of VAT and the complainant after understanding the scheme opted to buy the goods. It was denied that the price was inclusive of all taxes. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the answering Opposite Party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
After going through the relevant documents, the question arises, as to whether, the appellant was right in charging 5% VAT over and above of the discounted price. In this case, the price at Annexure C-1 shows that the original value of the item was Rs.2,595/-, which is inclusive of all taxes. When 50% discount was offered on the MRP then price should be half of what is given in the price tag, which again means that the said 50% price is inclusive of all taxes and no further VAT can be added over and above of the surplus. In the instant case, the appellant has charged a sum of Rs.77.85 being 5% price VAT. This shows that the appellant has charged VAT twice on the price after discount, because the original price i.e. MRP is inclusive of all taxes. This further proves that there was deficiency in service, on the part of the appellant, towards its customer i.e. the respondent/complainant and the learned Forum had rightly allowed the complaint against the Opposite Party. Therefore, the said appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.
No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
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.
Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
29.08.2016 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[DEV RAJ] MEMBER Sd/-
[PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER Gp STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.244 of 2016) (M/s Aero Club Vs. Shifali Mahajan) Argued by:
Sh. Rajesh Mahna, Advocate for the appellant.
Dated the 29th day of August 2016 ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party, has been dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs and the order passed by the District Forum, has been upheld.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (DEV RAJ) MEMBER (JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Gp [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jasbir Singh] PRESIDENT [ DEV RAJ] MEMBER [ PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER