Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

RBT/CC/1186/2018

Kanwaljeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

DealsKart Online Service Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Karamveer Singh

04 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                    COMMISSION

                                FATEHGARH SAHIB

 

RBT NO	:	CC/1186/ 2018
Complaint No.	:	RBT/CC/1186/2018
Date of Institution	:	16/11/2018
Date of Decision	:	04/05/2023

 

Kanwaljeet Kaur, aged 52 R/o 408 FF Gillco Valley Sector 127 Kharar Mohali. 

 

                                                      ………..  Complainant

 

1. DealtKart Online Service Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director

Address D12/2, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II New Delhi-110020

2. LENSKART.COM, through its Managing Director

Address: Pocked B Vatika Mindscapes, 7^th Floor, Mathura Rd, Sector 27, Faridabad, Haryana 121003

 

 

                                                                 ….......Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Sections 12  of Consumer Protection Act 1986(Old)

Quorum

 

Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President

Ms. Shivani Bhargava,  Member

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

 

Present: None for complainant .

              None for OPs.

 

 

    

            The complaint has been filed against the OPs (opposite parties)  under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986(old) alleging deficiency in service with the prayer to give directions to the OPs to refund  amount of  IGST i.e Rs.78/- along with interest @ 18% P.A , to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.10,000/-  litigation expenses  to the complainant .

1.                  The  complainant placed an order on the online E-Market Portal namely “LENSKART.COM” i.e OP no.2 and purchased  vide invoice no.INVHR22694316 from OP no.1 . The MRP of the  product was Rs.560/-  which was inclusive of all the taxes. A discount of Rs129/- was given on MRP of Rs.560/- and as such payable price was Rs.431/-.  But OP charged Rs.509/- from the complainant. OPs charged Rs.78/- extra as GST. Hence this complaint
2.           Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops.  Ops appeared and filed the version jointly .
3.         OPs appeared and contested the complaint  and filed their  version, raised legal objections.  Both the companies have been  set up under the Provisions of the Indian Companies Act.  The OP no.1 is franchise/using trademark of OPno.2. OP no.2  is engaged and associated with the business of ‘Eye wear, sunglasses, contact lenses, prescription lenses and accessories.    The relation of OP no.2  with the OP no.1 is on principal to principal basis.  The OP no.2 has no relation with  the present matter as there is no privity of contract between the OP2 and the complainant.   The MRP of the product was Rs.560/- with GST and the discounted price of the product was reflected as Rs.431/- and Rs.508.58 with GST on the  website of the OPs.  The complainant has been charged an amount of Rs.509/- by rounding off  the said discounted amount thus no GST has been charged.  The product was purchased vide the mode of cash on delivery and the complainant even at  the said stage could have declined to make the payment  and returned the payment.  After purchase of the goods and having made the payment thereof , the complainant could always have returned the same  if he was not satisfied with the Price.  The OPs follow  14 days  return Policy .  Hence OPs have prayed  for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4.   In order to prove his case, complainant tendered his  affidavit  and  self attested documents  i.e  Ex.C1 invoice, Ex.C2 MRP sticker attached on the product. Ex.C3 order total (incl.GST) .
5. In rebuttal, OPs  filed affidavit of  Udit Banga, Director/A of OP no.1. Affidavit of Anutosh Pandey , the Sr. Executive  (Legal) AR M/s Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
6. Case had been called several times during the day. Neither the complainant nor the OPs and any of their representative appeared on their  behalf . Since the complaint pertains to year , 2018 therefore we proceed to decide the complaint on merits on the grounds advanced before us by both the parties.
7. From the perusal of the file , it transpires that complainant made on online purchase from OP1 who is online Platform and is a registered company . MRP of the  Biotrue lens  Solution was Rs.560/- which was  inclusive of all the taxes vide Ex.C2.  After  discount sale price  of product was Rs.430.99 but Ops charged Rs.508.57 i.e Rs.77.58 more as GST vide Ex.C1. It is pertinent to note that most of the MRP sticker on most of the product reflects that MRP is inclusive of all taxes. MRP of the products  means maximum retail price to be paid . It is inclusive of all the taxes. It is being advertised by Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India to create awareness among consumers that no extra amount over and above the MRP printed on the goods can be charged. MRP of all products is always inclusive of all kinds of statutory taxes leviable on the said products and hence MRP is the maximum price at which product can be sold. A product can be sold below the MRP but not more than MRP.   It has been seen to be deceitful trend among quite a few retailer and online platforms to charge ‘EXTRA GST’ over and above the net MRP after offering discount on certain products. It amounts to legal plunder of double taxation .  However, such practice is clearly in gross violation of law. No GST will be applicable on the discounted MRP if the discount is offered on the MRP of the product. Since the said MRP (on which discount is offered) is already inclusive of GST(CGST as well as SGST).   Therefore OPs no.1  and 2 are held  liable for  deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice .
8. As a corollary of our above discussion  and keeping in view the facts , the present complaint is partly allowed. The OPs no.1 and 2 are directed as under:-

[a] to refund jointly and severally the amount of Rs.77.58/- charged as GST to the complainant along with interest @ 9% P. A from the date of filing of compliant within 30 days, failing which interest @ 12% shall be payable.

[b]     To pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment  and litigation expenses.

 Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 30 days of receipt of certified copy of this order . Failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the above said amount through legal  process. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due  to pandemic of Covid-19 and paucity of staff. File be returned back to the District Consumer Commission, Mohali for consignment.

Pronounced 4 May 2023.

                               

                                                       (S.K. Aggarwal)

                                                              President

                                                                     

    

                                                             (Shivani Bhargava)

                                                              Member

 

                                                             ( Manjit Singh Bhinder )

                                                                   Member