Punjab

SAS Nagar Mohali

CC/2697/2019

Varun Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Myntra Designs Private Ltd.(MYNTRA.COM) - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Bedi

22 Oct 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)

 

(1)                                Consumer Complaint No.2217 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  01.11.2019

(2)                                Consumer Complaint No.2697 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  16.12.2019

(3)                                Consumer Complaint No.2698 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  16.12.2019

(4)                                Consumer Complaint No.2223 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  01.11.2019

(5)                                Consumer Complaint No.2219 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  01.11.2019

(6)                                Consumer Complaint No.2661 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  11.12.2019

(7)                                Consumer Complaint No.288 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  28.02.2019

(8)                                Consumer Complaint No.2699 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  16.12.2019

 

                                                  Date of Decision: 22.10.2020

 

Varun Kumar son of Rishi Pal resident of House No.1400, Dashmesh Nagar, Naya Gaon, Mohali- 160103.

 

…….Complainant

Versus

 

1.     Myntra.com,- Myntra Designs Private Ltd., 3^rd Floor, A Block, AKR Tech. Park, 7^th Mile, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu Gate, Bangalore -560068 India through its Manager/ Authroised Person/Owner/Managing Director/ Director.

 

        And another

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties

                                       

Complaints under Consumer Protection Act.

 

 

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

 

Present:    None for the complainant.

Shri Rohit Kumar and Shri Atul Sharma, counsel for the OPs.

 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President &     Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

 

Order

 

               The present order of ours will dispose of above mentioned 8 complaints filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short).It is pertinent to mention here that in all the present complaints, the CC and the OPs are the same. The CC had purchased various small small items from the OPs and has filed a set of 8 complaints against the same OPs.  The grievance of the CC with the OPs is that when the product was sold to him on sale/discount directly/indirectly, in that situation the OPs had no right to impose tax or charge GST on the discounted item/product.

2.             It is again important to mention here that the CC, in case, was not satisfied with the value of the product, had an option to return the product online or to get the order cancelled but he had not chosen to do so, which clearly shows that these complaints have been filed for taking undue advantage by misusing the process of law. It appears that the CC, who has filed these complaints on the same issue, is trying to make a business out of process of law. It is seen that in most of these type of cases, when the complaints are filed and admitted, and notices are issued after  the use of Govt. postal stamps worth hundreds of rupees by this Commission.  The moment, the process is complete, the complainant compromises the matter with the OPs, extracts huge amount and withdraws the complaints. This was going on for the last so many years. It is important to mention here that these Consumer Commissions are constituted to provide justice to the “bonafide” consumers. We feel, that these types of consumers are definitely not bonafide consumers. Rather they are misusing the process of law by continuously filing these type of complaints in bulk, which clearly proves the malafide act and conduct of the CC.  It is seen that even the Advocate in most of these cases is the same. We have another bunch of files and in those files also the Advocate is the same. It is important to mention here that once the CC had found deficiency in service against the OPs, then why he ordered again and again and purchased small small items. We feel, that since the CC knew that he is trying to “make a good business” out of it and very well knowing that the OPs will definitely come on the table and compromise the matter with the CC, in order to avoid litigation and keep on continuing this kind of malpractice, the CC can also make easy money. We feel, Consumer Commissions are not meant to be a tool for creating “nuisance value”. Already huge resources of this Commission are wasted on such type of litigation.

3.             On the other hand we feel, that by advertising and using word ‘sale online’ is definitely allurement to the consumers to buy the advertised items at  cheaper bargaining price, which itself was not intended to be the real bargaining price and, therefore, it definitely amounts to unfair trade practice.  We feel, that if the maximum retail price printed on the goods/articles on mandatory labeling requires at the relevant time, should include all taxes levied on the goods. It is also important to mention here that hundreds of cases are pending against the OPs and earlier, almost in thousands of cases, the OPs had compromised the matter in these type of consumer complaints which definitely has brought more and more complaints in the Commission and also proves that the OPs were definitely somewhere are adopting malpractice, otherwise had not compromised the matters.

4.             We feel, that deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is also writ large on the file. No doubt the CC has also not come to the Commission with clean hands, but at the same time, we feel, that the OPs cannot also go scot free. Accordingly we allow the present complaint partly and order the OPs to refund the claimed GST amount in the aforesaid complaints to the CC. The OPs are further burdened to pay a punitive cost of Rs.200/- (Rs. Two Hundred only). We order the OPs to deposit Rs.200/-  (Rs. Two Hundred only) in the Legal Aid Account set up in this Commission.  This punitive cost of Rs.200/- is imposed to refrain the OPs from doing such activities. The OPs are directed to deposit the entire amount with this Commission and thereafter the amount awarded to the CC will only be released to the CC after verification of his proper address and antecedents. Free certified copies of this order be  sent to the complainant as well as OPs, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

Announced

October 22, 2020

                                                                (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

 

                                                        (Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member