DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  PATIALA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.115  of 12/04/2018   

   Decided on: 19/12/2018

 

Navdeep Singla S/o Sh. B. R. Singla, aged 64 years, R/o H. No.30-C, Model Town, Patiala

    .…...Complainant

Versus

1. Myntra.Com through its CEO (Chief Executive Officer), Mr. Ananth Narayanan, Regd. Office at 3rd Floor, A Block, AKR Tech Park, 7th Mile Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu Gate, Bangalore- 560068 

2. Sane Retails Private Limited, Khasra No.27/9, Near Kapashera Signal, Samalkha, New Delhi-110037.

          ……Opposite Parties 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ARGUED BY:

 

Sh. Amit Kumar Bedi Adv. counsel for the complainant.   

Sh. Bhimanshu Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.

Sh. Ravinder Singh Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.

 

 

 ORDER

                                   KANWALJEET SINGH,  MEMBER

1. The Complainant placed an online order for one Clarks Men Navy Leather Sneakers from the website of OP No.1 on discount and paid a sum of Rs.5118/- for the same. The MRP of the goods was Rs.7499/-. OP No.2 is the seller of the said goods on Myntra. Com. It is averred that on receiving the product, the complainant was shocked to notice that he was charged 5.00% VAT amounting to Rs.243.72P/- on the discounted price of Rs.4874.35P/- and the total amount paid by the complainant was Rs.5118/- which means that  complainant was made to  pay Rs.243.72P (as tax) over and above the discounted price. OPs charged VAT twice from the complainant. In normal course, the MRP of any product is inclusive of all taxes and a person can’t be taxed twice for the same product. OPs have nowhere on their advertised product specified that the depicted price is without tax. Thus, the OPs have misleaded the complainant and hence they are jointly & severally liable to compensate the complainant for charging  the tax twice as such an act on their part amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant tried  to contact the OPs but to no use. Ultimately, he approached this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer  Protection Act (for short the Act) 1986.

2. On notice, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed the reply to the complaint jointly. In their reply the only plea taken by them is that it is clearly mentioned on the website that at the time of check out, the actual amount will be shown. It was made clear at the very outset on the website, that “Additional Tax may apply, charge at check out,” therefore, it is clear from the term, that the amount does not include tax etc. Further the amount mentioned  is not the MRP of the product rather it is mentioned as Rs.7499/- which will be considered as the unit price of the product in question.  Hence, No extra amount has been charged from the complainant. After denying all the other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

3. In support of the complaint, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C-1 copy of tax/ retail Invoice, Ex.C-2 Copy of price tag and closed the complainant evidence.

4. Ld. Counsel for both OPs No.1 & 2 have suffered their separate statement that the written statement filed by OPs on dt.16/08/2018 be read as evidence on behalf of respective OPs No.1 & 2 and closed their evidence.

5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the Invoice dt.21/06/2017 where in the price of the product is shown as Rs.7499/-, discount amount Rs.2624.65P, the VAT amount Rs.243.72P- and the total amount paid by the complainant is Rs.5118/-. Ex.C-2 is the price tag of the product wherein the MRP of the product is shown as Rs.7499/-. It may be stated that as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2014, no extra amount over and above the M.R.P., printed on the goods could be charged, even the same has been sold on discount, as M.R.P. has already been included  all taxes levied on the goods. Since the OP has charged VAT on the discounted price of the product, from the complainant, in violation of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2014, therefore, it   has not only committed deficiency in service but also indulged in to unfair trade practice. The OP is thus liable to refund the amount charged on account of VAT and also  liable to  compensate the complainant for causing  mental agony and physical harassment. It is also liable to pay litigation expenses. In the case titled as M/s Aeroclub (woodland) Versus Rakesh Sharma, Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016, decided on 04 Jan 2017, the Hon’ble National Commission has already held that  “In our opinion, therefore, the defence of the Petitioners that they had charged VAT as per law is of no avail in so far as the issue at hand, viz. misleading advertisement, resulting in unfair trade practice, is concerned. We are in complete agreement with the Fora below that any discount falling short of “Flat 40% on the MRP would amount to unfair trade practice, as defined in the Act”. 

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:

i. To refund Rs.243.72/- rounded of Rs.244/- charged on account of VAT, to the complainant.

ii. To pay Rs.3000/-as compensation, for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. 

iii. To pay Rs.1000/- as compensation for litigation expenses.

        Both the OPs are further directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.    

ANNOUNCED

DATED:  19/12/2018 

 

 

           KANWALJEET SINGH                     NEELAM  GUPTA

                           MEMBER                MEMBER