DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C.No.240 of 02-11-2021

Decided on : 31-01-2023

Vikas Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar Age 32, R/o #30057, St. No-1, Gopal Nagar, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. LimeRoad.Com 4^th & 5^th Floor, Plot No.48, Sector 44, Near Huda City Center Metro Station, Gurgaon, Haryana -122001, India.

2. The Himalaya Drug Company, Makali, Bengaluru – 562162.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. Vikas Kumar, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Opposite parties Ex-parte.

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President:-

1. The complainant Vikas Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against LimeRoad and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he has online account with opposite party No.1. The opposite parties time to time advertise their product by e-mails or messages to the customers or public in large. The opposite party No.1 is the authorized e-commerce company for selling the apparels etc., on web sites and opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer of the product and they are giving many offers to allure the customers to buy their products.

3. It is alleged that on 22.9.2020 complainant seen the offer given by the opposite parties and purchased product Himlaya baby cream through online mode vide order No. 74765885 dated 22.9.2020 and paid the consideration amount of Rs. 149/- (which Included Extra IGST & Shipping+Handling Charges) by the debit card but the MRP (which is inclusive all Taxes) of the product was Rs. 70/-. The opposite parties for promoting the sale, offered price of the product at the rate of Rs. 66/- and after giving discount of Rs. 4/- to the complainant.

4. It is alleged that the ordered product of the complainant dispatched by the opposite parties and delivered the same to the complainant but the Invoice shown different price breakup than offered price breakup as detailed below :

   Offered Price Breakup of the product:	Invoice Price Breakup :
   SUMMARY Payment Mode Payu Total Price:- 66/- Shipping Charges: 79/- Applicable tax and charges Rs. 4/- Amount Payable – Rs.149/- Buy Now	Payment Mode Payu MRP Price : 70/- Shipping + Handling Cost: 83/- Cod Charges : 0 Discount : 4/- IGST amount : 22.73 Amount paid : Rs. 149/-

5. It is also alleged that the opposite parties with the malafied intention and for grabbing or earning the more profit by way of mala fide trade practice trade practice and with the connivance of each other, charged extra IGST amount of Rs.4/- which was more than MRP. The opposite parties used to offer misleading price breakup & hiding crucial information on their web portal and after purchase of the product, they charge extra IGST and convert it into shipping and Handling charges from buyers which was not shown earlier in offer price breakup of the product and thereafter all opposite parties by malafied intention or malafied trade practice they cleverly converted the Extra IGST amount of Rs. 4/- in Shipping+ Handling Charges by mentioning as Shipping + Handling Charges upon the bill invoice.

6. It is further alleged that all opposite parties fetching money from the public at large which is against the Consumer Protection Act and also violation of the E-commerce rules. The opposite parties very cleverly charged extra IGST amount of Rs. 4/- and converted the same in Shipping and Handling Charges. The opposite parties are manufacturing defective product and not a quality product. The MRP amount of the product is Rs.70/- inclusive all taxes of the product and the MRP amount duly mentioned by the manufacturer at the time of manufacturing the product but while the complainant process the payment by debit card then the opposite parties in connivance with each other, charged extra IGST amount of Rs. 4/- which is against the law and norms laid down under the 'Act'. The complainant already sent complaint regarding charge of extra IGST to the customer care through e-mail and also made call to the opposite parties for refund the same, but no action was taken by the opposite parties.

7. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay loss on account of extra IGST paid on discounted product Rs. 4/- alongwith total paid amount of Rs. 149/- and compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. on account of mental, financial harassment in addition to Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

8. Registered A.D. Notice of complaint was sent to the opposite parties. None appeared on behalf of opposite parties, as such exparte proceedings were taken against them.

9. In evidence, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 28.10.2021 (Ex. C-1) and the documents (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3).

10. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully.

11. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that the opposite parties for promoting the sale, offered price of the product at the rate of Rs. 66/- and after giving discount of Rs. 4/- to the complainant, the product came out at the price of Rs. 66/- but the opposite parties again charged Rs. 4/- IGST charges as Shipping + Handling Charges. The opposite parties charged GST extra, but they neither appeared before this Commission despite service of notice nor produced any notification to prove that they are entitled to charge GST extra upon Price of Product as Price of Product is supposed to include all taxes. As such, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties stands proved. Therefore, the complaint be accepted.

    To support these submissions, learned counsel for complainant has cited following case law:-

    i) Decision of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case D.K Chopra Vs. Snack Bar, 2014(2) CPJ 493;

    ii) Decision of Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh in case I AM In (A Division of Future Lifestyle Fashions Ltd.) Vs. Heena Aggarwal, 2017(1) CPJ 141;

    iii) Decision of District Consumer Forum, U.T Chandigarh in case Munish Bansal Vs. Reebok India Company and Anr. rendered in C.C No.619 of 2016, Decided on 30.1.2017;

    iv) Decision of District Consumer Forum, U.T Chandigarh in case Jaswinder Kaur Vs. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. rendered in C.C No.600 of 2016, Decided on 1.5.2017;

    v) Decision of District Consumer Forum, U.T Chandigarh in case Tushar Walia Vs. ADI Sports rendered in C.C No.607 of 2017, Decided on 1.12.2017;

    vi) Decision of Hon'ble State Commission, U.T Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, Decided on 1.9.2015 in case Shoppers Stop and Others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant at length and gone through the record carefully.

13. A perusal of record placed on file by complainant reveals that he purchased product Himalaya Baby Cream through online mode vide order No. 74765885 dated 22.9.2020 and paid consideration amount of Rs. 149/- including Extra IGST as Shipping+Handling Charges by the debit card. The MRP of the product was Rs.70/- which was inclusive of all taxes. The opposite parties offered/MRP price of the product at the rate of Rs.66/- and after giving discount of Rs.4/- to the complainant, price of product came out at the price of Rs.66/- but the opposite parties again charged Rs.4/- as extra IGST and converted into Shipping+Handling Charges.

14. We have perused both the documents tendered by complainant as Ex. C-3 (offer) and Ex. C-2 (Invoice). In Ex. C-3 i.e. offer, the price of product is mentioned as Rs. 66/-. In this offer, Rs. 4/- has been added as applicable taxes and charges and amount payable is shown as Rs.149/-. But, in invoice (Ex. C-2) price break-up is shown as MRP Rs. 70/-. Discount Rs.4/-, Shipping+Handling Charges Rs. 83/- and amount paid Rs. 149/-. Analytical analysis of Ex. C-2 shows that price of product was Rs. 70/- and it was reduced to Rs. 66/- from Rs. 70/- by the opposite parties and further by deducting Rs. 4/- as discount, MRP/price of the product comes to Rs. 66/-, but opposite parties added Rs. 4/- as Shipping+Handling Charges which is not fair as price of product/MRP includes all types of taxes etc., and no further tax can be levied on MRP/price of the product. Comparative perusal of offer (Ex. C-3) and invoice (Ex. C-2) further reveals that price break-up in both the documents is not same, which also proves that opposite parties manipulated price with vested interest and committed unfair trade practice. So, this Commission is of the considered opinion that opposite parties are deficient in service and adopted unfair trade practice to exploit the consumers.

15. The averment of complainant is supported by affidavit. Opposite parties have not come forward to contest the complaint of the complainant. Hence, evidence placed on file by complainant remained unchallenged and unrebutted. The opposite parties have not produced any notification to justify the charging of taxes. In case of Shoppers Stop (Supra), State Commission, U.T Chandigarh has held that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is inclusive of all taxes, then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. This observation is fully applicable to the case in hand. Therefore, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice stands proved.

16. Now, question is regarding compensation. The complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment etc. Legal position regarding amount of compensation has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, National Commission and State Commissions in number of authorities. In latest judgment titled as Chief Administrative Huda & Anr. Vs. Shakuntla Devi, I 2017 (CPJ) SC in Paragraph No.12 of this judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under:-

    “12) The sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof of loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of opposite party. Once the said conditions are satisfied, the Consumer Forum would have to decide the quantum of compensation to which the consumer is entitled. There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury. There is a duty cast on the Consumer Forum to take into account all relevant factors for arriving at the compensation to be paid.”

17. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- (including excess amount charged from complainant) as cost and compensation against opposite parties.

18. The compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

19. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

20. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced:-

    31-01-2023

     

    1. (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member