DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Madhu P. Singh W/o P.P Singh, Resident of House No. 106, Sector 11-A Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.       Amazon Sellers Services Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, Ground Floor, Eros Plaza, Eros Corporate Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

2.       Amazon Sellers Services Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, Brigade Gateway 8^th Floor, 26/1 Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram West, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560055.

3.       M/s Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. GMR Airport City, Survey
No. 99/1, Mamidipally Village, Shamshabad Hyderabad, Telangana, 500108

……Opposite Parties

BEFORE:      SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SH. B.M SHARMA,         MEMBER

Argued by: -

                   Complainant In Person.

                   None for OPs No. 1 and 2.

                   OP No. 3 Ex-parte.

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         The case of the complainant in brief is that, complainant purchased a pair of Carlton Lodon Women’s Shayna Black Pumps (Footwear) Size UK India 38, at 33% of discount from Amazon, Which was shown to have the price of Rs. 2,995/- inclusive all taxes. That the OP No. 3 raised the invoice dated 20.06.2019 for an amount of Rs. 1048/- and the payment in cash was made on delivery by the complainant.  A copy of the retail invoice is attached herewith as Exhibit C-1. However, on opening the package, the complainant found that MRP written on the shoe box was  
   Rs. 2,995/- inclusive of all taxes whereas tax of Rs. 49.90 had been charged extra. It is further averred that opposite parties charged an excess amount of Rs. 49.90 from her and are thus guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. State further that Complainant approached the customer care services of all the OPs seeking refund of the excess amount charged along with compensation for mental agony and harassment but did not get any response from them. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.        Notice, of the complaint was sent to OP No. 3 through regd. post on 14.8.2019, but despite given number  of opportunities  OP No. 3  did not appear and as such he was ordered  to be proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.11.20219.
3.         In the written statement, filed by OPs No. 1 and 2  stated that ASSPL does not sell or offers to sell any products and neither does ASSPL advertise or endorse any product of service on its website or anywhere else and it merely provides an online market place where independent third party sellers list their products for sale; Therefore, the sellers themselves and not ASSPL are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. It is averred further that ASSPL is neither responsible for the products that were listed on the website by various third party sellers, nor does ASSPL intervene or influence any customers in any manner. Also ASSPL is not involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller. It is further submitted that Complainant never approached OP No. 1 nor lodged any complaint with regard to the grievances and further OP No. 1 has also no knowledge with regard to the same. It is further submitted that the discounted price of the product raised by the seller from the complainant is exclusive of taxes and has correctly been raised. Reiterated that the complainant has not bought any goods from ASSPL and it has acted as an intermediary only. Further, the amount paid by the complainant is against an invoice raised by the seller of the product and the OP No. 1 has no claim over the said amount. It is averred that the goods have been bought by the complainant from the seller, selling its products on the Website operated by OP No. 1. And OP No. 1 is not into any trading activity and further, that the product in question is neither manufactured nor sold by the
   OP No. 1. It is submitted further that the contract of the sale and purchase of the items traded over at the Website is strictly a bipartite contract between a registered seller and the customer and both the parties are bound by the terms of the “Conditions of Use”. There is no privity of contract between the OP No. 1 with the buyers and accordingly OP No. 1 is not responsible for any non performance or breach of any contract entered into directly between the complainant and the Seller.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on his part of OPs No. 1 and 2, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         The contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.           As per order dated 6.10.2020 the counsel for the complainant stated that he did not want to file rejoinder to the  reply filed by OPs No. 1 and 2.
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by complainant in person.
7.          In evidence, the complainant has filed his detailed affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint.  From a perusal of the record and tag (Annexure C-2), it becomes evident that the complainant did purchase an article having MRP of Rs.2995/- including of all taxes after availing the discount of 33% on the MRP. Further, it is evident from the invoice dated 21.06.2019 (Annexure C-1) that after giving discount of Rs.998/-, the OPs have illegally charged a sum of Rs.49.90 towards the IGST on the discounted price.
8.              The simple question for determination in the present case is whether MRP includes all taxes, including IGST, and whether, after discount, IGST can be charged or not? A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 1.9.2015 in case titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Versus Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others”, wherein it has been held that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. In another decision in Appeal No.61 of 2016, decided on 18.02.2016, in case titled as “Benetton India Private Limited Vs. Ravinderjit Singh”, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant (Benetton India Pvt. Limited) has held that if it is clearly mentioned as MRP inclusive of all taxes, charging of 5% VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice.
9.           The ratio of above stated pronouncements is squarely applicable to the present case. As such, when MRP included all the taxes, charging of extra IGST on the discounted price would certainly amount to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Hence, the OPs are liable to refund the excess amount of GST besides compensation for mental agony, physical pain and litigation expenses to the complainant.
10.           In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  The OPs are directed as under :-

(i)    To refund to the complainant Rs.49.90 (say Rs.50/-) being the amount of GST wrongly charged;

(ii)     To pay composite amount of Rs.2500/- on account of deficiency in service  and for litigation expenses.  

.

11.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy of order, failing which, they shall make additional amount of Rs.2500/- to the complainant.  
12.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.