DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

          Complaint No.32 of 2020                            Date of Instt. 22.01.2020                      Date of Decision: 10.08.2021

Sukhdeep Sher Gill D/o Sh. Amrik Singh, Resident of House No.67, Chotti Baradari, Part-2, Garha Road, Jalandhar.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. Adilaxmi E-commerce Private Limited, Village Binola, Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana–122413 through its Authorized Representative.

2.       Myntra India, Headquarters: Myntra Designs Private Limited, AKR   Tech Park, 7^th Mile, Kudlu Gate, Bengaluru 560068, Karnatka, India through its Authorized Representative.

..…Opposite parties

          Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Kuljit Singh             (President)                                                   Smt. Jyotsna                    (Member)

Present:       Smt. Leena Sehgal, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.                     Sh. A. S. Sohal, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.

ORDER

              Kuljit Singh (President)

1.           The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that complainant purchased a Photo Frames from the OPs vide invoice No.C100000002166205 dated 18.09.2019, order No.1120358-1023556-6355601, Packet ID: 510111692, amount paid Rs.998/-. The MRP of the photo frames was shown to be Rs.2400/- which was sold to the complainant and price of photo frames was inclusive of all taxes as per price tag on the photo frames. A discount of Rs.1680/- was given on MRP of photo frames and after deducting the discount from the MRP and the final amount payable should have come to Rs.720/-. However, OPs charged an amount of Rs.129/- as IGST @ 18% on Rs.720/- i.e. total charged price from the complainant is Rs.998/- (Rs.720/- + Rs.129/- IGST + Rs.149 Courier Charges). The payment of the said amount was paid by complainant cash to the delivery man. The MRP of any article always includes all taxes including GST so a retailer cannot charge the price over and above the same but OPs have charged an excessive amount to the tune of Rs.129/- from the complainant in an illegal manner.  Lastly prayer has been made that OPs be directed to refund amount of IGST illegally charged i.e. Rs.129/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of realization.  Rs.25,000/- as claimed as compensation for harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigations expenses.
2.           Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP No.1 has filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complainant not come to this Commission with clean hands; the complainant, alongwith his family, friends and also the counsel representing the complaint, has filed more than 100 similar complaints before this Commission against OP-1 and other registered sellers on online portals; complainant is trying to misuse the provisions of Consumer Protection Act for his illegal enrichment; complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Commission; it is stated that discount, if any, is on the price displayed (listing price/base price) in product specifications and price arrived at after deductions of such discount does not become the discounted MRP or new MRP; complainant was very well aware of cost of product at the time of placing the order and was very much satisfied with the value of the product even after delivery of the product.  If the complainant was not satisfied with the value, there was an opportunity with him to return the product or to get the order cancelled, but he not do so which clearly shows that the present complaint has been filed for undue advantage by misusing the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  Complainant gone through the complete specification and disclosures made by the OP-1 at the web portal.  No information had been concealed from complainant as the fact was clearly mentioned at the Product Description page that extra tax may be levied at checkout.  Thus, complainant was having complete knowledge that tax would be levied upon the price shown at the time of order and even after having the complete knowledge about this, he chose to order the product.  The complainant was at liberty to buy the said product from any other portal or seller of his wish if he was not willing to pay the price to the OP-1. Complainant had complete knowledge of the sale price, discount offered, tax levied, and the final amount payable on the transaction and he had clear option to not to enter into transaction when if he was not satisfied with it.  However, he chose to enter into transaction with the seller by all his concise and wisdom and thus, he cannot claim the terms of the contract/transaction to be invalid and claim refund of the tax amount paid which was already been deposited with the Government.  On merits, all the averments of complaint denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3.           OP No.2 has filed separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections as submitted by OP-1.  On merits, the answering Op has denied averments of complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4.           In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
5.           Rejoinder not filed.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the as case file very carefully.
7.           From Ex.C-1 is transpired that complainant has received the article in the Name of Sukhdeep Sher Gill at House No.67, Chhotti Baradari Part-2, Near PUDA Park No.2, Garha Road, Jalandhar City, HO Jalandhar–144001, Pb. India. While on photocopy of her Adhaar Card, it is mentioned that Sukhdeep Kaur D/o Amrik Singh, Firozepur, Mukandpur Nawanshahr, Punjab, Punjab – 144507. As such, complainant not fulfill the requirement of section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and liable to be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
8.           Further, the first point of consideration is that the amount of IGST charged by the opposite parties has not gone to the profit of the opposite parties rather the same has gone in the account of Central Government and State Government in equal share which they spent on the development of the country. In this way, the amount charged from the complainant has gone to the account of the Government and there is no interest of the opposite parties for charging this amount as such they have not charged this amount for their own profit.
9.           Secondly, the complainant filed many other similar cases before this Commission which proved that complainant frequently purchased the items from the opposite parties even after knowing the fact of extra charges on account of IGST. So, all these purchases also proved the malafide intention of the complainant to firstly purchase these items from the opposite parties and then filed several complaints against them only to extract money from the opposite parties.
10.           Thirdly, the complainant himself/herself filed copy of screen shot of the products Ex.C-3 in which the Photo frame price is mentioned as Rs.2400/- after deducting discount of Rs.1680/- and adding tax of Rs.129/-. Similarly, the final price of photo frame is mentioned as Rs.849.60/-. In the affidavit Ex.C-A the complainant duly deposed that he/she had paid total Rs.998/- to the opposite parties, which duly proved on the file that the opposite parties only charged the amount of Rs.998/- from the complainant which were shown on their on line site and they have not charged any extra amount from him/her. 
11.           Lastly, the complainant never sent any complaint or email to the opposite parties regarding the extra charges on account of IGST and directly filed the present complaint which also shows his/her malafide intention as the complainant must given a chance to the opposite parties to clear their position for charging this amount. As the opposite parties charged the amount from the complainant as shown on their on line application and not charged any extra amount so there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 
12.           As a result of our above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation.
13.           Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
14.           File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

                             Announced in open Commission

                   10^th of August 2021

                   Kuljit Singh

                   (President)

                   Jyotsna

                   (Member)

                                                                                             MEMBER ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

  Complaint No.32 of 2020                 Date of Instt. 22.01.2020                       Date of Decision: 17.08.2021

Sukhdeep Sher Gill D/o Sh.Amrik Singh, Resident of House No.67, Chotti Baradari, Part-2, Garha Road, Jalandhar.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. Adilaxmi E-commerce Private Limited, Village Binola, Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122413 through its Authorized Representative.

2.       Myntra India, Headquarters: Myntra Designs Private Limited,   AKR Tech Park, 7^th Mile, Kudlu Gate, Bengaluru 560068,        Karnatka, India     through its Authorized Representative.

..…Opposite parties

          Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Kuljit Singh             (President)                                                   Smt. Jyotsna                    (Member)

Present:       Smt. Leena Sehgal, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.                     Sh. A. S. Sohal, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.

ORDER

              JYOTSNA (MEMBER)

1.           I have received the above orders for my consent today wherein the above complaint has been dismissed by Hon’ble President of this commission. However with utmost and due respect to the views expressed by the Hon’ble President, I prefer to disagree with above orders for the reasons mentioned below.
2.           There is no need to reproduce the facts and the evidence as has already been recorded.  From Ex.C-1, it is transpired that complainant has received the article in the Name of Sukhdeep Sher Gill at House No.67, Chhotti Baradari Part-2, Near PUDA Park No.2, Garha Road, Jalandhar City, HO Jalandhar – 144001, Pb. India. Complainant is residing at the above address and hence falls under the jurisdiction of this commission.
3.           After going through the pleadings of both the parties, we find that the factum in regard to purchase of the product from the Ops vide invoice No.C100000002166205 dated 18.09.2019, order No.1120358-1023556-6355601, Packet ID: 510111692, amount paid Rs.998/-. The MRP of the photo frames was shown to be Rs.2400/- which was sold to the complainant and price of photo frames was inclusive of all taxes as per price tag on the photo frames.  A discount of Rs.1680/- was given on MRP of photo frames and after deducting the discount from the MRP and the final amount payable should have come to Rs.720/-.  However, OPs charged an amount of Rs.129/- as IGST @ 18% on Rs.720/- i.e. total charged price from the complainant is Rs.998/- (Rs.720/- + Rs.129/- IGST + Rs.149 Courier Charges).  The payment of the said amount was paid by complainant cash to the delivery man.

4.                The case of the complainant is not denied by the OP. Rather the OP took another plea in the Preliminary Objections that the complainant is in habit of filing such like complaint before this Forum and earlier also the complainant has filed such like complaint. The OP itself admitted that the complainant is in habit to file such like complaint against the OP. So, it means the OP is committed such like error again and again intentionally just to get recover more price of the product then printed thereon and if the complainant is aggrieved from that excess payment again and again, then he has right to file a complaint again and again rather giving this type of reply, the OP itself admitted that they are in habit to commit such like mistake against the complainant as well as general public. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant in regard to getting more price than MRP is established and it is settled law that none of the dealer, manufacturer can charge excess price than the MRP because MRP means include all taxes etc. In support of this version, we like to refer a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, decided in Revision Petition No.3156 of 2016, titled as “Benetton India Pvt. Limited Vs. Ravinder Singh. We further like to refer another pronouncement of UT State Commission, Chandigarh, decided in CC No.400/2015, decided on 14.01.2016, titled as “Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs. M/s ADI Sports etc”.

                   Further, as per law laid down in case titled as M/s. Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs Rakesh Sharma in Revision Petition No.347 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi as well as the law laid down in M/s. Aero Club Vs Ravinder Singh Dhanju decided in First appeal No.136 of 2017 on 23.05.2017 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT , it has been held that practice of charging GST on the discounted price of the product having MRP inclusive of all taxes is an unfair trade practice.

5.                If we see the case of the complainant in the light of above judgments, then apparently, it is clearly established that MRP is inclusive of all taxes and retailer can sale any product below the MRP and cannot charge above MRP i.e. price higher than MRP, so if any charge above the MRP, then over charging is a clear cut unfair trade practice.

6.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and the same is partly accepted and accordingly, OP is directed to refund the excess price charged from the complainant i.e. Rs.129/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 18.09.2019 till realization and further OP is directed to pay compensation to the complainant for causing harassment, mental agony, to the tune of Rs.2000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-.

7.                In view of my dissenting opinion, the present orders of the Hon’ble President are not enforceable. Therefore, the Alhmad of this office is directed to seek necessary directions from the Hon’ble SCDRC, Punjab, so as to refer these orders for the opinion of another member to make this a majority order.

August 17,2021                         Jyotsna

                                                  (Member)

OPINION OF 3^RD MEMBER SH. JASWANT SINGH DHILLON

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

OPINION OF 3^RD MEMBER SH. JASWANT SINGH DHILLON

                   In the present case the judgment was passed by the then President Sh. Kuljit Singh on 10.08.2021 dissent view was given by the Member Smt. Jyotsna on 17.08.2021. The case was then referred to Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.DCC/JAL/2021/1922 dated 12.10.2021, for opinion of another member to make this majority order since there was no third Member in Jalandhar at that time. Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, vide letter No.SCDRC/PB/2021/11230 dated 29.12.2021, has now directed me to give the opinion in this case. I have gone through the file and facts of this case. From the facts, it is clear that complainant is residing at Jalandhar and delivery of goods was received in Jalandhar, therefore it falls under the jurisdiction of this Commission.

                   It is very much clear that I.G.S.T. has been charged over and above the MRP of the product. It is well settled law that MRP amount mentioned on the product is inclusive of all taxes. No dealer can charge any tax either G.S.T. or any other tax over and above MRP since it is already included in MRP. Charging additional tax after discount price is illegal and arbitrary and amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Hon’ble National Commission and many State Commissions have pronounced many judgments on this issue, which have been discussed in detail by Hon’ble Member Mrs. Jyotsna in her opinion mention above, are as under:-

                   M/s. Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma in Revision Petition No.347 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi as well as the law laid down in M/s. Aero Club Vs Ravinder Singh Dhanju decided in First appeal No.136 of 2017 on 23.05.2017 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, it has been held that practice of charging GST on the discounted price of the product having MRP inclusive of all taxes is an unfair trade practice.

                   In view of the above facts, I prefer to disagree with the views expressed by the then Hon’ble President Mr.Kuljit Singh and agree with the views given by the Hon’ble Member Mrs. Jyotsna.

                   Therefore, by majority view the complaint of the complainant succeeds and same is partly allowed. OPs are directed to refund the excess price charged from the complainant that is Rs.129/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 18.09.2019 till its realization and further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.                          Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated:________________                                   Jaswant Singh Dhillon                                                                                Member