DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  PATIALA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.161  of   27/04/2018

                      Decided on:    13/12/2018

 

Rita Rani D/o Late Sh. Dharampal Kaushik resident of # C-86, Vikas Colony, 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. Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No.14//6,7,13,14,15,17, 18,23, 24,2516//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, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Smt. Neelam Gupta,  Member

Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Member

 

ARGUED BY:

Sh. Asheen Khan Adv. counsel for the complainant. Sh. Bimanshu Adv. counsel for OP No.1. Sh. Ravinder  Singh Adv. counsel for OP No.2. 

 

 

 

 

 ORDER

                                        NEELAM GUPTA,  MEMBER

1.            The complainant placed an online order for one dress (Naughty ninos Girls Navy Blue & Red Checked Drop-waist dress) from the website of OP No.1 on 45 % discount and paid Rs.865/- for the same. The MRP of the goods was Rs.1499/-. OP No.2 is the seller of the said product on Myntra.com. It is averred that on receiving the product, the complainant was shocked to notice that she was charged 5 % IGST amounting to Rs.41.20P on the discounted price of Rs.824/- and the total amount paid  by the complainant was Rs.865.20P, which means that the complainant was made to  pay Rs.41.20P (as tax) over and above the discounted price. OPs charged GST 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 & filed their reply to the complaint. In the reply filed by OP No.1, OP No.1 has taken preliminary objections that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP No.1. It is alleged that on Myntra platform i.e. https://www.myntra.com/termsofuse, it is clearly mentioned that “All contractual/ commercial terms are offered by and agreed to between the buyer and the seller alone. The contractual/ commercial terms include without limitation price, shipping cost, payment method, payment terms, date, period and mode of delivery, warranties related to products and services and after sale services related to products and services. Myntra does not have any control or does not determine or advise or in any way involve itself in the offering or acceptance of such contractual/commercial terms between the buyer and the seller.” On Merits it is submitted that the amount  mentioned is not MRP of the product rather it has been mentioned as Rs.1499/- which is the unit price of the product in question. Hence it is clear that no extra amount has been charged from the complainant. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

3. In the reply filed by OP No.2, the only plea has been taken by it is that  it is clearly mentioned on the website that at the time of check out, the actual amount will be shown and 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.1499/- 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. 

4. 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 bill, Ex. C-2 original tag, Ex.C-3 screen shot of mobile showing price and closed the evidence.

5. Ld. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 have suffered their separate statement that the written statement filed by both the OPs No.1 & 2 respectively dt.12/07/2018 be read as evidence on behalf of respective OPs No.1 & 2 and closed the evidence.

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

7. Ex.C-2 is the tag, where in the MRP of the product is clearly mentioned as Rs.1499/-. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the Invoice dt. 16/3/2018 where in the price of the product is shown as Rs.1499/-, discount amount Rs.675/-, the IGST amount Rs.41.20P and the total amount paid by the complainant is Rs.865/-. Ex.C-3 is the document showing price of the product as Rs.1499/- after discount @ 45 % the price of the product came out to be Rs.824/-. 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 GST 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 GST 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”. 

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

i. To refund Rs.41.20P rounded off Rs.41/- charged on account of IGST,  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:  13/12/2018 

 

 

           KANWALJEET SINGH                     NEELAM  GUPTA

                           MEMBER                MEMBER