ORDER

Jasbir Singh (Retd.), President—This order will dispose of aforementioned two appeals as identical questions of facts and law are involved therein. To dictate order, the facts are being taken from Appeal No.331 of 2016 titled as M/s Ethnicity v. Heena Aggarwal.

2. In her complaint, it was stated by the respondent/complainant that on discounted Maximum Retail Price of a garment purchased by her, the appellant/OP has wrongly charged VAT. It was alleged that by doing so, the appellant has indulged into unfair trade practise. It was her specific case that an amount of Rs.24.45p has wrongly been charged. When her protest could not yield any result, she filed a consumer complaint claiming refund of above said amount, Rs.25,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.

3. The complaint was contested. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint vide order dated 31.8.2016, by observing as under ;

"In the present case, admittedly the OP while mentioning the price of the product did not mention in the cash memo (Annexure C-1) the MRP and only the rate has been mentio