DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

          Complaint No. 38 of 2020                 Date of Instt. 28.01.2020                     Date of Decision: 28.04.2022

Nitin Gupta S/o Sh. Davinder Nath Gupta, Resident of House No.1173, Urban Estate Phase 1, Jalandhar City-144022.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. Consulting Rooms Private Limited, Embassy Industrial Park, Village Pathredi, Taoru Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, Bhiwadi, 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:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)                                        Smt. Jyotsna                              (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)          

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

ORDER

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.           The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OPs on the averments that complainant purchased a Playboy Deodorant from OPs vide invoice No.C100000001901328 dated 23.09.2019, Order No.1121054-1753477-5069301, Order dated:- 23.09.2019, Packet ID: 5103328970, Amount paid Rs.205/-. The MRP of the Playboy Deodorant was shown to be Rs.249/- which was sold to the complainant and price of Playboy Deodorant was inclusive of all taxes as per price tag on the Playboy Deodorant. A discount of Rs.75/- was given on MRP of Playboy Deodorant and after deducting the discount from the MRP and the final amount payable should have come to Rs.174/-. However, OPs charged an amount of Rs.31/- as IGST @ 18% on Rs.174/- i.e. total charged price from the complainant is Rs.205/- (Rs.174/- + Rs.31/- IGST).  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.31/- 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.31/- 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 did 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 written arguments as submitted by both the parties as well as case file very minutely.

7.                 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 Nitin Gupta, House No.1173, Urban Estate Phase 1 Jalandhar 144022. Complainant is residing at the above address and hence falls under the jurisdiction of this commission.

8.                 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.C100000001901328 dated 23.09.2019, order No.1121054-1753477-5069301, order dated 23.09.2019, Packet ID: 5103328970, amount paid Rs.205/-. The MRP of the Playboy deodorant was shown to be Rs.249/- which was sold to the complainant and price of Playboy deodorant was inclusive of all taxes as per price tag on the Playboy deodorant.  A discount of Rs.75/- was given on MRP of Playboy deodorant and after deducting the discount from the MRP and the final amount payable should have come to Rs.174/-. However, OPs charged an amount of Rs.31/- as IGST @ 18% on Rs.174/- i.e. total charged price from the complainant is Rs.205/- (Rs.174/- + Rs.31/- IGST).  The payment of the said amount was paid by complainant cash to the delivery man.

9.                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 complaints before this Commission and earlier also the complainant has filed such like complaints in the different Districts Commissions. The OP itself admitted that the complainant is in habit of filing such like complaints against the OP, this shows that the OPs are committing such like mistakes again and again intentionally just to get recovered more price of the product than printed thereon and if the complainant is aggrieved from that excess payment, then he has right to file a complaint. 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 including 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”, wherein it has been held as under:-                                                    “It is 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" and, therefore,           tantamounts to unfair trade practice.”                                                                  We further like to refer another pronouncement of Hon’ble UT State Commission, Chandigarh, decided in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 01.09.2015, in case titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others”, wherein it has been held as under:-                                                                                                                             “No one can charge more than the MRP and MRP                   includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes.”                                                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.     10.           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.              11.            In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and the same is partly allowed and accordingly, OPs are directed to refund the excess price charged from the complainant i.e. Rs.31/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 23.09.2019 till realization and further OPs are directed to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant for causing harassment, mental agony, to the tune of Rs.1000/-. 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.                                                                                              12.           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    Jyotsna                Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj 28.04.2022         Member                        Member           President