DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.255 of 2017

                                            Date of institution:  29.03.2017                                         Date of decision   : 28.03.2018

Veena Rani wife of Shri Jagan Nath Bhandari, resident of House No.12, Block-A, Janta Colony, Naya Gaon, Mohali SAS Nagar, Punjab.

…….Complainant

Versus

Jabong, Registered & Corporate Address – Novariss Fashion Trading Private Limited, Plot No.82A, Sector 18, Gurgaon, Haryana 122015 through its Managing Director.

……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Shri Jagan Nath Bhandari, cl. for complainant.

                Shri Divjyot S. Sandhu, counsel for the OP.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant, booked 3 D Houzz Double Bed Sheet with 2 pillow covers from website of OP vide order No.170321632761847 on 21.03.2017. Price of the same on the website was shown as Rs.1,249/-. Discount was offered @ 56% and the discounted price was Rs.549/-. Complainant booked the product on discounted price of Rs.549/- regarding which e-mail confirmation was received. The product was delivered through courier on 26.03.2017. The courier boy collected Rs.704/-, which the complainant had to pay for taking delivery of the packet. When complainant opened the packet, she saw the invoice for finding that on the discounted price, 5% tax of amount of Rs.27.45 was charged. Total MRP of the product was Rs.1,249/- (inclusive of all taxes) as mentioned in the invoice. 5% tax of amount f Rs.27.45 N.P. is charged extra from the complainant by adopting unfair trade practice and as such this complaint filed for seeking refund of the excess charged amount of Rs.27.45 N.P. with compensatory cost of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2.             In reply, it is claimed that complaint has been filed with malafide intention with brow beating the company and for seeking publicity. Moreover, it is claimed that no deficiency is pointed out in the purchased product by the complainant and in the absence of same, it is to be assumed as if complainant is fully satisfied with the purchased product. OP provides discount on unit price basis. Detailed break up on all final charges are clearly displayed on the payment page at the checkout stage. Calculations are also mentioned in the copy of sent invoice alongwith the order to customer. Discounts are offered on case by case basis on individual items. The VAT is passed on to the buyer since it is calculated on the unit price and not on MRP basis. Nothing more than MRP has been charged and as such it is claimed that trivial dispute is raised with ulterior motive. It is claimed that OP reserves right to initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution and defamation etc. MRP of the product namely bed sheet with two pillow covers was Rs.1,249/- even as per website contents. Sale price of the unit was Rs. 549/- excluding VAT.  Admittedly VAT @ 5% of amount of Rs.27.45 N.P. was charged with total amount of Rs.576.45 N.P. Handling charges of Rs.99/- and COD charges of Rs.28/- were added for collecting the total amount of Rs.704.45 N.P. It is claimed that no extra amount was charged. It is denied that MRP of the product was inclusive of all taxes. Rather VAT was charged on the discounted price for paying the amount to Govt. and as such OP has not indulged in any unfair and illegal trade practice. All other averments of the complaint also denied.

3.             Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-4 and thereafter her counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Vinod Abrol, authorised signatory and thereafter closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Counsel for complainant vehemently contends that the ordered bed sheet with two pillow covers was having MRP of Rs.1,249/- inclusive of all taxes and as such VAT of Rs.27.45 N.P. @ 5% could not have been charged on the discounted price of Rs.549/-. However, in Para No.4 of the reply as well as in Para No.4 of affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of authorised representative of OP, it is specifically mentioned that MRP shown was not inclusive of all taxes. So contentious issue remains as to whether MRP of Rs.1,249/- mentioned in retail invoice Ex.C-2 was inclusive of all taxes or not. After going through invoice Ex.C-2, it is made out that seller in this case is Enfin Homes Private Limited. That seller Enfin Homes Private Limited has not been impleaded as party in this case and as such virtually complaint is filed against intermediary through whom order for purchase of double bed sheet with two pillow covers was placed. If at all extra charges of Rs.27.45 N.P. collected from complainant,  then the same were collected by the seller namely Enfin Homes and not by the present OP namely Novariss Fashion Trading Private Limited. Act of charging of alleged extra amount as such is attributable to seller namely Enfin Homes and not to the present OP. Booking of the bed sheet with two pillow covers by complainant through website of OP is a transaction between the intermediary, who provides a platform for transaction of sale and purchase between seller and the buyer. As extra amount was not collected by OP, but by Enfin Homes, the seller and as such certainly complaint against present OP, the intermediary providing platform, is not maintainable.

6.             Moreover, in e-mail Ex.C-1 name of the seller mentioned as Enfin Homes and not as Novariss Fashion Trading Pvt. Ltd. There is nothing in order details contained in Ex.C-1 that MRP of Rs.1,249/- is inclusive of all taxes. Likewise in retail invoice Ex.C-2 or in the cash delivery receipt Ex.C-3 it is not at all mentioned that MRP of Rs.1,249/- includes all taxes. After receipt of packet of bed sheet and pillow covers, complainant could have retained the tag affixed thereon to show that MRP of Rs.1,249/- is inclusive of all taxes. That price tag affixed on the bed sheet and pillow covers is not produced and as such virtually no material produced to establish that MRP of Rs.1,249/- was inclusive of all taxes. Even in Ex.C-4 name of seller shown as
Enfin Homes, but without mention of the price or discounted price etc.  Reference of receipt of Rs.704/- in cash on delivery of packet is made in courier receipt Ex.C-3 itself. As no material produced on record to establish that MRP of Rs.1,249/- was inclusive of all taxes and as OP has denied specifically this fact and as such complainant unable to prove that on discounted price the tax is charged by adopting unfair trade practice. Had any material produced on record to show that MRP of Rs.1,249/- was inclusive of all taxes, only then it would have lie in the mouth of complainant to claim that on the discounted price, the tax could not be charged. This is not the position and as such complaint being misconceived merits dismissal.

7.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. 

Announced

March 28, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                           (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)                                                                       Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member