Complainant Rohit Sharma vide the present complaint U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter for short the Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.22/- for loss on account of Extra IGST paid on the discounted items. Opposite parties be further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of Mental and financial harassment, Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 18% per annum to him for such deficiency and negligence and any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deem fit also be granted in his favour.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased an online product from opposite party no.1 who was the authorized dealer for selling the apparels, etc. after paying the consideration amount of Rs.327/- approx. vide invoice dated 15.12.2020. As per bill opposite party sent the product to complainant. The MRP of the product was Rs.393/- which was inclusive of all taxes as per MRP. The opposite parties in order to promote the sale of the articles offered a discount of 35% on the MRP.  After giving 35% discount on the product, the price of the product came to Rs.255/- (approx). which was inclusive of all taxes but in addition thereto the opposite party extra IGST total @ 9% on the discounted price of the product which was Rs.277/- (approx) and  Rs.50/- for shipping and he had to pay Rs.327/- for the consideration amount of product. He has next pleaded that he told the delivery boy of opposite party no.1 that why they were charging extra IGST after giving discount. On that the said person told him that they are charging IGST from every customer and that charged IGST was not illegal in manner as it was under the policy of company. Since the MRP of a product includes all taxes, including IGST.  The action of the opposite parties is against the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of CST of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2014 under Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Goods.   Therefore, charging the tax twice, amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.         Opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has accepted the goods from the opposite party in full and clear knowledge of the MRP, the discount and the GST charges applicable on the product without any protest and therefore the instant complaint is merely an afterthought. It has next submitted that the entire amount collected under the head of “GST” is being duly deposited by the opposite party to the concerned statutory authorities. It has further submitted that once any customer accessing the online portal www.firstcry.com undertakes the purchase of any product; at the time of placing the order, the order details clearly indicate the “Add’I charges may apply on discounted price”, if any. Further after adding the product to the cart, the full break-up of the amount charged is provided that includes the value of the product, discount, shipping charges and additional GST.”; the complainant has not come to the Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and the opposite party has not acted in contravention to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant failed to state as to how much discount was offered at the time of sale and how much was actually granted.  It was further submitted that the grievance was raised with delivery boy are immaterial. Had there been any grievance, the same should be raised with the opposite parties and the customer care of the opposite party after the purchase of the product.  All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.      Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2.

5.       Alongwith the written statement, opposite parties has filed affidavit of Mr.Sagar Panaskar  Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.

 6.    We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.       After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, it is transpired that the present complaint filed by the complainant is just to extract money from opposite parties. It is very pertinent to mention here that when the opposite parties were charging excess value from the complainant, he should have returned the product or should have not ordered for more products online. Rather, the complainant placed online order for the same product time and again under different names, which clearly shows that the complaint has been filed for the purpose of taking undue advantage by misusing the process of law. Therefore, the complaint is not to be proceeded further as the same appears to be malafide. In support of this, we rely upon a judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission “Bajer Govindan Versus P.Santosh Kumar decided on 18.4.2019”.

8.         In view of this, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

9.                Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                             

             (Neelam Gupta)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                                        (Jyotsna)

July 14, 2021                                                       Member

*MK*