DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.2241 of 2019
Date of institution: 04.11.2019 Date of decision : 10.08.2020
Priyanka Singh wife of Rahul, Resident of House No.1400, Dasmesh Nagar, Naya Gaon, Mohali-160103.
.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Myntra.com- Myntra Designs Private Ltd., 3rd Floor, A Block, AKR Tech. Park, 7th Mile, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu Gate, Bangalore -560068 India through its Manager/ Authorised Person/ Owner/Managing Director/ Director.
……..Opposite Party No.1
2. Adilaxmi E-Commerce Pvt. Ltd. 14/E, East Klassik, Benchmar, Off BG Road, Bangaluru 560076 through its Manager or its Authorised Representative.
……..Opposite Party No.2
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Shri Inderjit, Member
Present: Shri Rahul Bedi, counsel for the complainant.
None for the OPs.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short), wherein it is mentioned, that she has approached this Commission due to adoption of an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The allegation of the CC is that she had an account with OP No.1 and purchased online product from OP No.1 by paying consideration amount of Rs.89/- vide retail invoice dated 25.06.2019. It is alleged that the MRP of the product was Rs.150/- which was inclusive of all taxes. The OPs in order to promote sale of articles offered discount of 50% on the MRP. The said price had become about Rs.75/- inclusive of all taxes. On this amount, it is alleged that OPs charged extra IGST @ 18% which is about Rs.13/- and the CC had to pay Rs.89/- in total. It is alleged that CC asked the delivery boy about extra charging of IGST after discount, but did not get any satisfactory answer.
Thus, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and malpractice on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought the refund of Rs.13/- charged by the OPs for the IGST and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Further CC has demanded Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. Complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by affidavit of the CC.
2. Notice of the complaint was duly issued to the OPs. Counsel for the OPs instead of filing any reply or version, straightway made a statement in open Commission that OPs are ready to settle the matter by paying Rs.3,000/- to the CC, within 30 days from today i.e. 09.03.2020. After that the case could not be heard due to COVID since no one appeared from the side of the CC.
3. Today i.e. on 10.08.2020, suddenly the Advocate for the CC appeared and stated at bar that he is ready to accept the offer given by counsel for the OPs and further stated that the complaint may be decided accordingly.
4. Since the OPs have chosen not to file any version or to contest the allegations of the CC and simply gave offer of Rs.3,000/- for charging extra IGST of Rs.13/-, this clearly shows that the OPs have admitted the malpractice as well as unfair trade practice on their part and in order to absolve their liability gave an offer in the Commission to compensate the CC by paying her Rs.3,000/-. We feel, that in such peculiar circumstances where the OPs have admitted the unfair trade practice on their part, no evidence is required from the side of the CC. On the other hand CC has also accepted the total compensation amount of Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.72,000/- which she had demanded in the complaint.
5. It is noticed that a number of complaints against OPs are pending before this Commission and it is also in the knowledge of this Commission that in hundreds of cases, notices had been issued to the OPs, the matters are settled outside the Commission by the parties among themselves. Even in most of the cases, copies of the compromises are also not provided or submitted in this Commission. To our mind, OPs are in the habit of charging IGST which, they admittedly have no right to do so. It is also writ- large that OPs might have been continuing this practice regularly and have collected huge amount from thousands of customers around the country. The very purpose of Consumer Protection Act, which has come into existence, will fail if this Commission is not able to curb this mal practice with strong hands.
6. Accordingly, the present complaint is disposed off. It is ordered that OPs will pay Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand only) to the complainant, if not already paid, as per the statement made by counsel for the OPs immediately. The OPs are further burdened to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) as compensation, which will go to the Legal Aid Account of this Forum to help the poor litigants. This extra cost is put on the OPs so that in future they may refrain from adopting such mal practice. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
August 10, 2020
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
(Inderjit)
Member
