DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2018
Date of institution: 01.02.2018 Date of decision : 13.05.2019
Kartik Sharma son of Sunil Kumar Sharma, resident of House No.942-D, Adarsh Nagar, Nayagaon, District Mohali-160103.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Myntra Designs Private Ltd. AKR Tech Park-B Block, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, 7th Mile, Kudlu Gate, Bengaluru 560068.
2. Health & Happiness Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No.14//6,7, 13,14,15, 17,18, 23,24,25, 16//1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12/1, 17//3, 4,5,6,7,8, 11/2, 12,13, 14,15, Village Binola, Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana 122413.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Ms. Tejinder Kaur, counsel for OP No.1.
Shri Rohit Kumar, counsel for OP No.2
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Shorn off unnecessary details, on 22.12.2017 complainant visited online site of OP No.1 for purchase of a shirt on discount. Discount upto 80% on the products was offered. Complainant purchased Indian Terrain Men Navy & Off White Slim Fit Checked casual shirt from OP No.1 having MRP of Rs.1949/- inclusive of all taxes. After discount of 50%, payable price was Rs.974.50 N.P., but Rs.1,023.23 N.P. inclusive of Rs.48.73 N.P. as IGST @ 5.0% charged from complainant. On objection being raised by complainant, employee at customer care centre of OP No.1 claimed that they are bound to follow instructions of Management and as such complainant had to pay extra IGST and only then he will be allowed to buy the shirt. Complainant had to pay above referred amount of Rs.1023.23 N.P. Online order was placed from residence of complainant in Nayagaon, District Mohali and delivery of the product even took place at residence of complainant’s friend at 52-B, Adarsh Nagar, Nayagaon, District Mohali. By claiming that OPs adopted unfair trade practice, direction sought to OPs to supply copy of notification or the regulation issued by taxation authorities favouring practice of charging extra IGST on discounted price. Direction also sought to OPs to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.48.73 N.P. with interest. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-more claimed.
2. In reply submitted by OP No.1 it is claimed that complaint being false and misconceived is not maintainable. Moreover complainant has no cause of action as the matter relates to taxes. It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on part of OP No.1 and nor it adopted any unfair trade practice. No defect in the services or goods disclosed by complainant. OP No.1 offers online marketing platform for different sellers of their products and also for different buyers for purchasing the products. OP No.1 is not involved in manufacturing of any project, but it merely sells the products on retail basis manufactured by others. Allegations regarding purchase of the product through online or of offer of discount not denied. GST was levied as per law on the sale price. Discounts are not on taxes, but on the MRP. Only the Govt. can exempt or reduce the tax. OP No.1 as per displayed notices everyone that the GST will be charged extra and that is why the same was levied as per law. Charging of GST is statutory liability of OP No.1 and the recovered GST does not go in the pocket of OP No.1, but the same goes in the Govt. exchequer. Final sale price charged from the complainant is less than MRP. OP No.1 has not charged any additional tax. Discount is offered by OP No.1 on case to case basis on individual items. The relevant mathematical break up is clearly mentioned in every invoice. Admittedly MRP includes all taxes including GST. Complainant was provided discount on the unit price and OP No.1 claims to have the prerogative to pass on the burden of entire indirect tax (GST) on the buyer of the goods. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.
3. In separate reply filed by OP No.2, it is admitted that it is carrying on business of sale of goods manufactured by others. OP No.2 is registered reseller on the website “Myntra.com”. OP No.2 has acquired good market reputation for its range of products. Reply alleged to be filed by the duly authorised person. Complaint alleged to be filed for abusing process of law because complainant has suppressed true and material facts. Complainant is not consumer because product in question was purchased by Chanpreet Singh Garcha and not by the present complainant. Even the invoice placed on record shows the product purchased by Chanpreet Singh Garcha. Complainant has no locus standi. It is mentioned in the website of OP No.2 that at the time of checking out, actual amount will be shown and that additional VAT, if applicable, will be charged at the time of checking out. Amount mentioned is not MRP of the product, but is mentioned as Rs.1,949/- as the unit price of the product. So it is claimed that no extra amount has been charged. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied, but by claiming that MRP is totally different than that of the unit price.
4. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his two affidavits Ex.CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/3 and affidavit Ex.CW-1/2 of Chanpreet Singh Garcha alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and thereafter closed evidence. On the other hand counsel for the OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri Nikhil Aggarwal Ex.OP-1/1 and thereafter closed evidence. Counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-2/1 of Mr. Periyakaruppan P.L. authorised signatory of OP No.2 and thereafter closed evidence.
5. Written arguments submitted by complainant only and not by any other party. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
6. After going through Paras No.2 to 4 of the complaint, it is made out that as per claim of complainant, after visiting online website of OP No.1, he purchased a shirt on discounted price, but by paying extra IGST on the discounted price. In Para No.8 of the complaint it has been alleged that the said purchased product was delivered at the residence of friend of the complainant. Name of that friend of complainant has not at all been mentioned anywhere in the complaint and those facts even reiterated in the affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 of complainant. However, affidavit Ex.CW-1/2 of Chanpreet Singh Garcha is produced to show that he received the shirt on behalf of complainant Kartik Sharma at his house in Adarsh Nagar because Kartik Sharma had gone out of station at the time of delivery of the product. So from these contents of two affidavits Ex.CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2, it is made out that complainant reiterated his stand in the complaint as if the product in question was purchased by him, but delivery of the same received by his friend living in his neighbourhood. However, contents of affidavit Ex.CW-1/3 are also on the same lines, but when we go through invoice Ex.C-1, then it is made out as if Chanpreet Singh Garcha resident of H. No.52-B, Adrash Nagar, Nayagaon is buyer and he made payment of Rs.1,023.23 N.P.. So contents of produced invoice Ex. C-1 goes contrary to contents of affidavits Ex.CW-1/1 to Ex.CW-1/3 qua complainant being the purchaser. Documents cannot tell lie, though person may. It is not the case of complainant that invoice Ex.C-1 issued in wrong name and as such it has to be taken as if invoice Ex.C-1 records the correct name of buyer, who made payment. So privity of contract for purchase of shirt was between the OPs and Chanpreet Singh Garcha, who is not a party to this complaint. Even complainant has not produced on record any authority letter to show that he has been authrosied by purchaser Chanpreet Singh Garcha to file this complaint on his behalf. Being so, complaint by Kartik Sharma has been filed without any privity of contract between him and the OPs. As the order was placed by Chanpreet Singh Garcha in his name and delivery of the product received by him and as such Chanpreet Singh Garcha is consumer and not complainant Kartik Sharma. So submission advanced by counsel for OPs has force that as the complainant is not consumer of OPs and as such complaint at his instance is not maintainable. In such circumstance benefit of snapshot of the chat Ex.C-3 cannot be gained by the complainant. As complainant is not consumer of the OPs and as such complaint at his instance is not maintainable, more so when he is not having locus standi and cause of action to file this complaint against present OPs. In such circumstances benefit of ratio of cases mentioned in Para 4 of the written arguments submitted by the complainant cannot be gained, more so when through written arguments explanation is not at all offered as to why invoice Ex.C-1 got issued in the name of Chanpreet Singh Garcha .
7. No other worth mentioning point argued.
8. As complainant is not consumer of the OPs and as such complaint merits dismissal.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Announced
May 13, 2019
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
