Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/78/2018

Gautam Dutt - Complainant(s)

Versus

Myntra - Opp.Party(s)

Shiti Jain Dutt Adv.

09 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	78/2018
Date of Institution	:	02.02.2018
Date of Decision	:	09/04/2018

 

                                               

                                                         

Gautam Dutt s/o Late Sh.Surinder Kumar Dutta r/o H.No.2163, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       Myntra, 3^rd Floor, AKR Tech Park, 7^th Mile, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu Gate, Banglore-5600068, Karnataka through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.

 

2.       Tech Connect Retail Pvt. Ltd., Ksquare Industrial Park, Warehouse 4, Before Padgha Toll Naka, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Near Pushkar Mela Hotel Rahul Narheda, Padgha-Bhiwani, Mumbai, Maharashtra-421101 through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:      SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

                   Ms.Shiti Jain, Advocate for the complainant

                   OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, after going through the advertisement of sale, given by OP-1 in the month of January, 2018, the complainant ordered a pair of shoes of make Carlton London on 14.01.2018 having MRP of Rs.2295/-  on online site of Myntra (OP No.1) and after 30% discount, the price of the shoes was shown as Rs.1606/-. He also availed a discount coupon of Rs.240.90 on the said order and as such the price of the shoes came to Rs.1365.10P.  But, when he was handed over the physical copy of retail invoice, IGST of Rs.245.72P was illegally charged on the discounted price. Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Despite due service through registered post, OPNo.1 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.03.2018.
3.           Notice sent for the service of OP No.2 was received back with the report of refusal. Since refusal was good service, and none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties on the date fixed, therefore vide order dated 13.03.2018, it was proceeded against exparte. 
4.         The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the counsel for the complainant.
6.        In exparte evidence, the complainant has filed his detailed affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint.  From a perusal of the record and tag (Annexure C-3), it becomes evident that the complainant did purchase a pair of shoes having MRP of Rs.2295/- for Rs.1610/- after availing the discount of 30% on the MRP and Rs.240.90P of discount coupon. Further, it is evident from the invoice dated 14.01.2018 (Annexure  C-1) that after giving discount of Rs.929.90P, OP No.1 had illegally charged a sum of Rs.245.72P towards the IGST. The OPs have failed to substantiate their act either through some Govt. notification or case law.
7.      The simple question for determination in the present case is whether MRP includes all taxes, including IGST, and whether, after discount, IGST can be charged or not? A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 1.9.2015 in case titled as “Shoppers Stop and others Versus Jashan Preet Singh Gill and Others”, wherein it has been held that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all taxes then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately. In another decision in Appeal No.61 of 2016, decided on 18.02.2016, in case titled as “Benetton India Private Limited Vs. Ravinderjit Singh”, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant (Benetton India Pvt. Limited) has held that if it is clearly mentioned as MRP inclusive of all taxes, charging of 5% VAT or tax, is certainly against the trade practice.
8.           The ratio of above stated pronouncements is squarely applicable to the present case. As such, when MRP included all the taxes, charging of extra IGST on the discounted price would certainly amount to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Hence, the OPs are liable to refund the excess amount of IGST besides compensation for mental agony, physical pain and litigation expenses to the complainant.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  The OPs are directed as under :-

(i)    To refund to the complainant Rs.245.72P (say Rs.246/-) being the amount of IGST wrongly charged;

(ii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.1,100/- as costs of litigation.

10.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

09/04/2018                                                                                          Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER