State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd vs Aasthaa Negi on 15 June, 2018
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.759 of 2017
Date of Institution : 13.11.2017
Order Reserved on: 06.06.2018
Date of Decision : 15.06.2018
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., The North Country Mall, NH 21,
Mohali Kharar Road, SAS Nagar, through its Branch/Business
Manager/Authorised Signatory.
.....Appellant/opposite party
Versus
Aasthaa Negi D/o Pratap Singh, R/o House No.501, Silver Enclave,
Sector 125, Desu Majra Road, Greater Mohali, Kharar.
.....Respondent/complainant
First Appeal against order dated
27.09.2017 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali).
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Saurabh Gulia, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate ............................................ J.S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
Challenge in this appeal by appellant is to order dated 27.09.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) (in short the 'District Forum'), accepting the complaint exparte of respondent of this appeal by directing appellant to refund to the respondent of this appeal Rs.108.72 (Rs. One hundred eight and seventy two only) i.e. excess charges of VAT received from her at the time of issuance of bill, besides to pay her a lump sum amount First Appeal No.759 of 2017 2 of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation. Respondent of this appeal is complainant in the complaint before the District Forum and appellant herein is opposite party (in short OP) therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.
2. The complainant filed complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP on the averments that she went to OP on 29.01.2017 for purchasing ladies jeans. In order to promote sale, OP offered discount on the MRP of the products. The complainant purchased a Jean from the OP for MRP of Rs.2,995/-. The OP had issued retail invoice for Rs.1906.72 including Rs.108.72 as VAT @ 6.05%. The complainant raised objection for charging of VAT as the MRP of the product was inclusive of all taxes. When asked to show documents, under which they charged the same, officials of OP could not show any such notification of Taxation authorities favouring such practice of charging VAT extra on the discounted MRP. The officials told her that if the VAT charges were not paid, they would not allow to buy the Jean and she had to pay the amount of Rs.1906.72 for purchasing the said jean. The complainant alleged that the charging tax on the MRP is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The complainant prayed that OP be directed to furnish any such notification or regulation favoring such practice of charging extra VAT on MRP during discount period; to refund her the extra amount First Appeal No.759 of 2017 3 of VAT charged to the tune of Rs.108.72 with interest; to pay her Rs.50,000/- for harassment, besides Rs.33,000/- as litigation costs.
3. Notice of this complaint was sent to OP, which was delivered upon the OP on 08.06.2017, but none appeared on behalf of OP, hence it was proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 13.07.2017 by the District Forum.
4. The complainant tendered in exparte evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of bill and tag Ex.C-1 and closed the exparte evidence. On conclusion of exparte evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant exparte, as referred to above. Aggrieved by order the District Forum, OP now, appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The simple point falling for adjudication in this case is whether OP now appellant is entitled to charge VAT over and above the MRP of Rs.2995/- for a piece of jean. The appellant deals in ladies garments and he offered discount of 40% on the MRP on his products. The invoice issued by the appellant was of Rs.1906.72, which included Rs.108.72 as VAT @ 6.05%. MRP of the product is inclusive of all taxes as given on the product. Charging of VAT over and above MRP by OP in unfair trade practice in this case. We have considered the pleadings of complainant on the record, coupled with evidence on the record. Copy of invoice is Ex.C-1 showing that OP charged Rs.108.72 as First Appeal No.759 of 2017 4 VAT @6.05%. The MRP of lady jean is Rs.2995/- and discount was offered by OPs thereon. VAT collection on discounted price Rs.108.72 has been shown in this invoice on the file. The District Forum has relied upon judgment of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in "The Branch Manager M/s Shirt Palace Branch Black Bird Showroom Vs. Chandru H.C." Appeal no.3723 of 2011, decided on 16.01.2014 holding that charging of VAT on the discounted price is unfair trade practice. Similar view has been adopted by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in first appeal no.210 of 2015, decided on 01.09.2015, titled as "Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and others" holding that OP cannot charge VAT on the discounted price. The matter has also been settled by the Hon'ble National Commission in case "Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju" 2018 Law Suit(CO)22 holding that advertisement in the above form is nothing, but an allurement to gullible consumers to buy the advertised merchandise at a cheaper bargain price, which itself was not intended to be the real bargaining price. Therefore, it tantamounts to unfair trade practice. The National Commission has held that charging of VAT extra after reducing the MRP of product by the percentage of discount is unfair trade practice. The National Commission has held charging of VAT on the discounted price is nothing, but an unfair trade practice.
6. In this view of the matter, we have not come across any illegality or material irregularity in the order of the District Forum First Appeal No.759 of 2017 5 under challenge in this case and the same is affirmed in this appeal. The appeal is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
7. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.5055/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent of this appeal, being complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, subject to stay order, if any.
8. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 06.06.2018 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
9. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER June 15, 2018 MM