Haryana

Panchkula

CC/285/2016

SULABH MAHAJAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MYNTRA .COM & ors - Opp.Party(s)

AMARDEEP BINDRA

09 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.             

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	285 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	18.10.2016
Date of Decision	:	09.03.2017

                                                                                          

Sulabh Mahajan S/o Sh.Sushil Kumar Gupta, R/o # 103, GH-8, Sector-20, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Myntra.com, 3^rd floor, AKR Tech Park, 7^th Mile, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu Gate, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka, India through its Manager.

2.       Vector E-Commerce Private Limited, Village Binola, Tehsil Manesar Gurgaon, Haryana through its authorized signatory.

3.       Nike India Pvt. Ltd., ground and first floor, Olympia Building No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Park, C.V.Raman Nagar, Bangalore-560093 through its Managing Director.

                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Sukaam Gupta, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Ops No.1 and 2 already ex-parte.

                             Defence of Op No.3 already struck off.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that on 02.07.2016, he purchased one pair of shoes online for Rs. 2,517/- from the Op No.1 at discounted price on MRP i.e. 50% through OP No.2. At the time of making the payment, the complainant was not at home and his father made the payment of Rs.2,517/-. Thereafter, the complainant noticed that the Op No.1 had charged an amount of Rs.120/- as extra vat on the invoice price. The complainant contacted the Ops on toll free number and requested to refund the amount of Rs.120/- as the MRP of the product was inclusive of all the taxes but the Ops refused to entertain the complaint of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant asked for the official of Ops any notification or any regulation issued by any of the taxation authorities for charging extra VAT on discounted MRP. Upon this, the official of Ops told the complainant that such VAT was imposed by them on each and every customer. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Ops No.1 and 2 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Ops No.1 and 2, it is deemed to be served. The Ops No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.11.2016.
3. Notice issued to the OP No.3 and on 29.11.2016, Sh.Vikram Pal Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.3 and sought time for filing written statement and the case was adjourned to 21.12.2016 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 21.12.2016, due to none appearance of Op no. 3, the case was adjourned to 10.01.2017 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 10.01.2017, counsel for the OP No.3 sought time for filing written statement and case was adjourned to 13.01.2017 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 13.01.2017, counsel for the Op NO.3 again sought time for filing written statement. As per Section 13 (2) (a) CP Act, the opposite party has to give his version in the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not excluding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum. The OP No.3 failed to file the written statement within stipulated period and defence of the OP No.3 was struck off.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.
6. It is proved from the retail invoice (Annexure C-2), the complainant purchased one pair of shoes online for Rs. 2,517/- from the Op No.1 at discounted price on MRP i.e. 50% through OP No.2. After perusing the retail invoice, the complainant noticed that the Op No.1 had charged an amount of Rs.120/- as extra vat on the invoice price. The complainant contacted the Ops on toll free number and requested to refund the amount of Rs.120/- as the MRP of the product was inclusive of all the taxes but the Ops refused to entertain the complaint of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant asked for the official of Ops any notification or any regulation issued by any of the taxation authorities for charging extra VAT on discounted MRP. Upon this, the official of Ops told the complainant that such VAT was imposed by them on each and every customer. The complainant has also filed his sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
7. Moreover, the Op No.3 did not file any written statement and the Ops No.1 and 2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8. After giving our thoughtful consideration, we are of the considered opinion that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. Meaning thereby that MRP includes VAT and after discount no VAT can be charged, so on discounted product also VAT cannot be charged if VAT is included in MRP. 
9. At any rate, if the Opposite Parties had offered discount of 50% on the products purchased by the Complainant/Customer, then they are bound to sell the articles/products after discount. Though Opposite Parties had offered 50% discount on the shoes in question, still they charged extra VAT of Rs.120/- on discounted price. Once MRP is inclusive of all taxes, charging of extra VAT or tax, to our mind, is against the trade practice. Here we are fortified by the similar view taken by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 3723 of 2011, titled as “The Branch Manager, M/s Shirt Palace Branch, Black Bird Showroom Vs. Chandru H.C.”, decided on 16.01.2014.
10.  A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 01.09.2015 in case titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Versus Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others”, wherein it has been held that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. In a recent decision in Appeal No.61 of 2016, decided on 18.02.2016, in case titled as “Benetton India Private Limited Vs. Ravinderjit Singh”, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant (Benetton India Pvt. Limited) has held that if it is clearly mentioned as MRP inclusive of all taxes, charging of extra VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice. The ratio of the aforecited judicial pronouncements are squarely applicable to the present lis. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties in charging VAT on discounted product, clearly proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]    To refund excess charged VAT of Rs.120/- to the Complainant;

[b]    To Pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]    To Pay Rs.5000/- towards costs of litigation;

12. Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

09.03.2017                ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                                           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                          

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT