Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

RBT/CC/1202/2018

Gursharan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Novarris Fashion Trading Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In person

27 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                   RBT/CC/  1202 /2018

Complaint No. 1202 of 2018

                                                                   Date of Institution:26.11.2018

                                                                   Date of Decision: 27.09.2022

 

Gursharan Singh Kang S/o S. Joginder Singh, Resident of H. No.49. Phase-IV,S.A.S. Nagar(Mohali), Punjab-160059

                                                                                      …………....Complainant

                                                Versus

M/s Novarris Fashion Trading Private Limited, Plot no.82-A, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122015 (Registered and Corporate address) through its Managing Director/ Authorised Signatory/Chief Executive Officer.

..………....... Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986

Quorum

Sh. Pushvinder Singh, President

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

 

Present: Complainant in Person.

     Sh. Rohit Kumar,Adv. counsel for OP(through VC) .

Order By

 

SHIVANI  BHARGAVA, MEMBER

 

1.               The present complaint has been filed by the complainant Under Section 12 of CPA 1986(old) against the OP (opposite party), alleging  deficiency in service by  charging IGST of Rs.366.12P against MRP after discount from the complainant . For this , OP is liable for deficiency in service. With prayer for giving direction to the OP to refund Rs.366.12P which were charged as IGST at the rate of 18% P.A & Compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental & Physical harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- .
2.                  The brief facts of the complaint are that the  complainant purchased one pair of Black Derby  formal shoes( Hush Puppies) online from ‘Jabong.Com’ i.e.  from the OP for his personal use vide invoice no.JI00000000276183 . The MRP of the shoes was Rs.3699/- which was inclusive of all the taxes. A discount of 45% i.e Rs.1665/- was given on MRP and as such payable price was Rs.2034/-. OP charged IGST of Rs.366.12P on the discounted price i.e Rs.2034/-.  and in total OP charged Rs.2400.12P from the complainant. Complainant wrote an E-Mail to Jabong.com regarding this, but to no avail. Hence this complaint
3.           Notice of the complaint was given to the OP for filing the version.
4.         OP appeared and contested the complaint  and filed its  version, It has been pleaded that complainant has mistakenly considered the OP as  seller of  the product which is complete negligence on the part of the complainant as the OP herein is not  the seller of any product but mere an online intermediary between  the seller and buyer .  OP provides online market place platform/technology and/or other mechanism/ services to the seller & buyer of products to  facilitate the transactions, e-commerce for various goods. The product purchased by the complainant was sold by an independent seller through Jabong.com . The OP contended that product was purchased from third party i.e Tech Connect Pvt. Ltd. by  complainant as mentioned in the bill and copy of bill is attached by the complainant Seller of the product was not even impleaded as party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against OP with cost.
5.        In order to prove his case, complainant tendered his  affidavit and  self attested documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C4.  Ex.C1 is bill of product. Ex.C2 is MRP sticker attached on the product. Ex.C3 is E-Mail to Jabong for refund. Ex.C4 is reply by Jabong through E-Mail  to complainant and  gave reference of Judgement of  National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission  in M/s Aero Club (Woodland) Vs. Rakesh Sharma. On the other hand, OPs  filed affidavit of Mr. Harsha Kiran, S.M, authorized Signatory of OP and documents as Ex.OP1/A to Ex.OP3/A. Ex.OP1/A is authority letter by Jabong, Ex.OP2/A is guidelines for FDI on E-commerce. Ex.OP3/A is copy of order of Mohali Consumer Commission and closed their evidence.
6.  We have heard counsel for the complainant and OP and gone through the entire record of the case .
7. There is no dispute about the fact that complainant had purchased Black Derby Formal Shoes (Hush Puppies) from OP who is intermediary between the seller and buyer. MRP of the Shoes was Rs.3699/- and discount of 45% i.e Rs.1665 given on the M.R.P. After discount, payable amount was Rs.2034/- as mentioned in the bill but OP added 18% IGST on discount price. From the perusal of record on the file, its noted that GST was charged extra. Jabong.com (OP) denied all the allegation levelled by the complainant but OP admitted the fact that  GST was charged extra and  grievance of the complainant  should be against the seller not against OP because  OP is just intermediary between seller & buyer.
8.     We perused the relevant provisions of C.P.A-2019 and C.P(E.Commerce) rules 2020 regarding service Provider’ Liability.

         Sec-2(17) Electronic service provider means a person who provides  technologies or processes to enable to product seller to engage in advertising or selling goods or services to  a consumer & includes any online market place or online auction site. 

   Sec-2(38) Product service provider means the person who provides any service in respect of such product.

1. A Product service provider shall be liable in a product liability action if  the service provided by him was faulty or imperfect or deficient  or inadequate  in quality , nature or manner of   performance which is required to be provided by or under any law for the time being  in force or pursuant to any  contract or otherwise.

Furthermore The C.P (E-commerce) Rules-2020 provides.

• No E-Commerce entity shall-(a) manipulate the price of the goods or service offered on its platform in such a  manner as to gain  unreasonable profit by imposing on consumers any unjustified  price  having regard to the prevailing market conditions, the essential nature of the goods or service, any extra ordinary circumstances under which the good or service is offered & any other relevant consideration in determining  whether the price charged is justified.
• No seller offering goods or services through a market place, e-commerce entity shall adopt any unfair  trade practice where in the course of the offer on the e-commerce entity’ platform or otherwise

Above provisions, categorically spell out the vicarious liability of the E-commerce entitiesincluding online platforms and by presenting themselves as mere intermediaries and claiming liability exemption U/ Sec-79 ITact is not applicable. OP can not escape from its liability bydenying that he is not the seller. It is clear that OP is alsoliable for unfair trade practice becauseproducts are sold throughOP. Weobserved that Jabong earns commercially from eachsale of the product listed on itse-commerce platform and can not disassociate itself incases of issues arising from the sale of these items. As such,the pleas of theOP that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e seller is nottenable.

9.    MRP of the product means maximum   retail price  to be paid. It is inclusive of GST. It is being advertised by Department of consumer  affairs, India to  create awareness among consumers. No extra amount over & above the MRP printed on the goods could be  charged. MRP is the price at which product can be sold.  A product  can be sold  below the MRP but not more than MRP. MRP of the product is always inclusive of all kinds of statutory  taxes leviable on  the product It has  been seen to be a deceitful trend among  quite a few retailers  & online platforms to charge ‘EXTRA’ GST over & above the net MRP after offering discount on product. It amounts to legal plunder of  double taxation.  However such price is clearly in gross violation of law. As a natural corollary , no GST will be applicable on discounted MRP if the discount is offered on the MRP of the product. Since the said MRP (on which the discount is offered) is already inclusive of GST. (CGST as well as SGST). It is also pertinent to note that most of the MRP stickers on most of the product also  mention that MRP is inclusive of all taxes . No body can charge double tax because tax is already included in MRP. No extra GST can be levied on the net MRP arrive at post discount.  
10.   Keeping in view the facts of the present case & extensive Law as discussed above .  The present complaint is  partly allowed. The OP is directed to refund Rs.366.12P charged as GST and to pay compensation of Rs.2500/- for mental agony and physical harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. The above said order shall be  complied with in 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy by the Ops. There after it shall be liable for an interest @ 6% Per annum on the refund  amount of Rs.366.12P till its realization. Failing which  complainant  shall be   entitled to get the order implemented  through  legal process. The complaint could not be decided within a specific period as provided by the statute due to rush of work and large pendency. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and the OPs as per rules. The file be returned back to the District Consumer Commission, Mohali for consignment.

Announced: 27.09.2022

                                                           

                                                                               (Pushvinder Singh)

                                                                              President

 

(Shivani Bhargava)

                                                                              Member

                                                                            

(Manjit Singh Bhinder)

                                                                              Member