Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/51/2020

Mitashi Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Deep Goel

25 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/51/2020
Date of Institution	:	28/01/2020
Date of Decision	:	25/09/2023

 

Mitashi Mittal aged around 31 years W/o Gaurav Deep Goel, R/o H.No.1119, Sector 18C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, A Block, AKR Tech Park, 7^th Mile Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu Gate, Bangalore-560068 through its Manager.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Gaurav Deep Goel, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Atul Sharma, Counsel for OP.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased the products from the OP through online shopping portals (Annexure C-1 to C-31). Thereafter, it has come to the notice of the complainant that OP has charged tax extra on this item and has not disclosed as to how tax has been calculated, which amounts to unfair trade practice. The OP has charged the price in excess of the price fixed because the MRP of the item includes all the taxes and as such the complainant has been charged twice the amount of tax which shows their act and conduct. The OP has committed grave illegality which amounts to unfair trade practice since the terms and conditions relating to CGST and SGST are against essence and spirit of law and therefore, they have neither any value in the eyes of law, nor they are binding on the customer. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the products were purchased from the third-party sellers. It had not decided the price of the products nor provided any discount to the complainant. It is also stated that the complainant has not produced even a single document to establish his allegation that discount was provided on the MRP. The price that was shown on the website of the OP was base price/gross price and discount price was offered on the base/gross price only. The discounted price also does not become the MRP of the product as alleged by the complainant. It is further stated that the tax has not been charged on MRP and the product was not sold for more than the MRP amount. In fact, the sale price was much less than the MRP amount. The sale price includes all taxes if the product is sold on MRP amount but when the product has been sold on discount then a bifurcation was made in the tax invoice with regard to all heads of gross price and sale price and taxes etc. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP.
3.     No rejoinder filed by the complainant.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The sole point in the present complaint for consideration is that whether the complainant was sold a product more than MRP, the answer to the same is in negative. As per the complaint, the OP has wrongly charged the tax on the discounted price. The sale price includes all taxes if the product is sold on MRP amount. As per complainant, the OP has wrongly charged the taxes on the discounted price which amounts to unfair trade practice.
7.     The stand taken by the OP is that the complainant has not produced even a single document to establish that discount is on the MRP and the product has been sold for the price more than MRP. Rather the sale price is much less than the MRP amount.
8.     After going through the documents on record, it is evident that the bill raised by the OP nowhere mentioned the MRP of the product, but in that column only price is mentioned. In our opinion, the complainant booked his orders through OP online marketplace/e-commerce portal after going through all the specifications and disclaimers provided thereon with regard to price, use, discount, taxes etc. If we peruse the bill, the products were sold by the sellers and not the OP. We feel that the discount was provided to the consumers from the profit margin of the seller and in the present case also tax was calculated on the discounted sale price which is much less than the price of the product. More so, the tax collected by the seller from the complainant must have been deposited in the revenue fund of the Government as per law and not in the pockets of the OP. In our opinion the discount on the listed price/price displayed in product specifications and price arrived at after deductions of such discounts does not become the discounted MRP or the new MRP. It is important to consider that a maximum retail price is inclusive of all taxes and retailer can sell at a price below the MRP. The seller has every right to lower the selling price by reducing his margin built into the MRP in the form of the discount. Thus, offering discount on any product is reduction in sellers’ margin on the product which in itself is a benefit to the buyer/consumer.
9.     The complainant must have ordered the products in question after going through the complete specifications and disclosures made by the seller at the web portal. Thus, the complainant was having complete knowledge that tax would be levied upon the price shown at the time of order and therefore, she chose to order the products. Even also if the complainant was not satisfied with the value, she was having ample opportunity to return the product or to get the order cancelled. Hence, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
10.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
25/09/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member