State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Manoj Sharma. vs M/S Aero Club. on 23 April, 2018
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 161/2017
Date of Presentation: 08.06.2017
Order Reserved on : 28.02.2018
Date of Order : 23.04.2018
......
Manoj Sharma son of Tota Ram resident of village Bhatwar Koti
Utrou Sirmour Shalai Himachal Pradesh.
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
M/s. Aero Club Shop No.48 The Mall Shimal-1.
......Respondent/Opposite party
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Vinod Suman vice Mr. Raghav
Goeal Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Sharma vice Mr. Yash
Pal Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 24.05.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.153/2016 title Manoj Sharma Versus M/s. Aero Club.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Manoj Sharma Versus M/s. Aero Club (F.A. No.161/2017) Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Shri Manoj filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant purchased two jackets from opposite party vide retail invoice bill annexure-C1. It is pleaded that opposite party charged extra VAT tax from discounted amount in the retail invoice bill annexure-C1. It is further pleaded that complainant asked the opposite party to waive of extra VAT tax charges claimed in discounted amount but opposite party did not accept request of complainant and committed unfair trade practice. It is pleaded that complainant paid extra VAT tax under protest to opposite party. It is pleaded that complainant also served legal notice upon opposite party but despite legal notice opposite party did not accept the request of complainant. Complainant sought refund of extra VAT charges to the tune of Rs.274.70/-(Two hundred seventy four rupees & seventy paise) claimed by opposite party with interest @ 18% per annum. In addition complainant sought compensation to the tune of Rs.30000/-(Thirty thousand). In addition complainant sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs.15000/-(Fifteen thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that Commissioner of VAT is necessary party.
It is pleaded that opposite party has claimed the VAT strictly 2 Manoj Sharma Versus M/s. Aero Club (F.A. No.161/2017) as per statutory collection. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not commit any unfair trade practice. It is further pleaded that complainant did not properly understood the meaning of MRP and VAT. It is pleaded that goods sold are not pre-tax paid but are subject to payment of VAT at the time of sale. It is further pleaded that opposite party has legally claimed VAT tax in invoice bill annexure-C1. It is further pleaded that VAT and MRP are entirely two different concepts under law. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant purchased two jackets 3 Manoj Sharma Versus M/s. Aero Club (F.A. No.161/2017) from opposite party vide retail invoice bill annexure-CI. There is recital in affidavit that Jackets were sold on discounted price by opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party has given 50% discount upon two jackets.
There is recital in affidavit that opposite party charged extra VAT from complainant upon discounted amount and committed unfair trade practice.
8. Per contra opposite party filed affidavit of Shri Kikoo Kapoor. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party receive VAT from complainant strictly as per display notice placed in shop relating to VAT tax and did not commit any deficiency in service.
9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite party committed unfair trade practice by way of claiming VAT as extra charges from discounted amount is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused terms and condition of invoice bill annexure-CI which are quoted in toto :-
"Annexure-CI"
RETAIL INVOICE Aero Club
TIN NO. 2010100409 Shimla-2, The Mall
LST/SCT NO: Shop No.48 Ground Floor
The Mall
WOODLAND Shimla
0177 2803476.
No. :NO40CSH161701856 Date 06/12/2016 00:00 4 Manoj Sharma Versus M/s. Aero Club (F.A. No.161/2017) Sr. Description M.R.P Disc./ VAT Qty. VAT Amount Amount No. of Goods Unit @% Amount (Excl. Incl.
Vat) Vat
1) TMPO1 5495.00 2748.00 5.00 1.00 137.35 2746.65 2884.35
GMT Men
Jackets JC
232 Grey
M
2) TMPO1 5495.00 2748.00 5.00 1.00 137.35 2746.65 2884.35
GMT Men
Jackets JC
232 Grey L
3) TMPO1 10.00 1.00 10.00 10.00
Donated to
Unicef-
Thank U I
Unicef 00
4) Invoice 0.30
Round Off
Cash (Rs.) 0.00 Exch Amt Rs(-) 0.00 Grand Total 274.70 6603.30 5779.00
Credit Card (Rs.) 5779.00 Tax in Sale/Exch Rs.(-) 0.00 Net Payable Rs. 5779.00
E.&.O.E 0.00 Authorised Signatory Net Tax/Vat charged Rs.274.70
10. State Commission is of the opinion that invoice bill is a substantial piece of evidence inter se parties. There is no recital in invoice bill that VAT tax would be charged extra from discounted amount. State Commission is of the opinion that in the absence of terms and conditions in the invoice bill annexure-C1 relating to extra VAT charges from discounted amount opposite party was not competent to charge extra VAT tax from the complainant from discounted amount. State Commission is of the opinion that privity of contract was executed between complainant and opposite party strictly as per terms and conditions of invoice bill annexure-C1. It is held that VAT was included in discounted amount. It is held that after giving discount to complainant by opposite party 5 Manoj Sharma Versus M/s. Aero Club (F.A. No.161/2017) demand of extra VAT was impermissible under law. See Revision petition No.3477 of 2016 decided by Hon'ble National Commission on dated 04.01.2017 in case titled M/s. AERO CLUB (Woodland) Versus Rakesh Sharma. Law laid down by Hon'ble National Consumer Commission is binding upon State Consumer Commission.
11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that in display board kept in shop it was specifically mentioned that VAT would be charged at applicable rate on discounted price and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. In view of the law that in MRP amount VAT is always included it is held that in discounted price also VAT would be automatically included as per law. It is held that VAT could not be separated from discounted price under law unilaterally. It is held that display board was prepared by opposite party unilaterally without expressed consent of complainant and same could not be used against complainant in the absence of recital in retail invoice bill annexure-CI issued by opposite party. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
12. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. Order of learned District Forum dated 24.05.2017 announced in consumer complaint No.153/2016 6 Manoj Sharma Versus M/s. Aero Club (F.A. No.161/2017) title Manoj Sharma Versus M/s. Aero Club is set aside. It is ordered that opposite party would return the VAT amount claimed from complainant to the tune of Rs.274.70/-(Two hundred seventy four rupees & seventy paise). It is further ordered that opposite party would pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand) for mental and physical harassment. It is further ordered that opposite party would pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs.7000/-(Seven thousand). Opposite party would pay the amount to the complainant within one month after receipt of certified copy of order. Retail invoice bill annexure- C1 issued by opposite party will form part and parcel of order. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member 23.04.2018 KD* 7