Haryana

Ambala

CC/367/2019

Harpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Myntra - Opp.Party(s)

Jaskaran Singh

10 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.:  367 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution    :   05.11.2019.

                                                          Date of decision    :   10.02.2020.

 

Harpreet Kaur (Age-49) wife of Raj Barinder Singh, resident of # 45 Mall Road, Ambala Cantt., Haryana.

 

                                                                                      …. Complainant.                                                    Versus

1. Myntra, 3^rd Floor, A Block, AKR Tech Park, 7^th Mile, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu gate, Bangalore-5600068, Karnataka, through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorized Signatory. 
2. Adilaxmi E-Commerce Private Limited 14/E East Klassik, Benchmark, Off BG Road Banglore, Banglore, Karnataka, India, 560076 IN through its Proprietor/Director/Manager or Authorized Signatory.

 

               ..…. Opposite Parties

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Jaskaran Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                   OPs No.1 and 2 proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated                        26.12.2019.

                  

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund Rs.22/- charged on account of GST.
2. To pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
   382.  

Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

               In nutshell, the brief facts of the present complaint are that the OP No.1 advertised ‘sale’ in the month of July, 2019 and offered 30% to 50% discount on various merchandise displayed on their website. While going through the products displayed on sale on the website of OP No.1, on 18.07.2019, the complainant ordered a Revlon New Coral Matte Nail Enamel 523 (8ml) and 45% discount was offered on the said product. The MRP of said product was Rs.225/- and after 45% discount, its price was shown as 123/-. That the order billing details showed total Rs.145/- (Rs.123/- discounted price + Rs22/- Tax). He paid the order via net banking vide order No.1115350-3298655-7432503. That the order was delivered to him on 21.07.2019 through invoice No.C100000001380628 dated 18.07.2019. When he opened the delivered article, he came to know that the price mentioned on the tag of the said product is Rs.225/- inclusive of all taxes. This way, the OP No.2 wrongly charged Rs.22/- as GST, as the price on which discount was offered is already inclusive of all taxes and introduction of GST does not change the MRP. The products sold in the market at MRP includes all the applicable taxes. When the product comes into the market with MRP includes all the taxes are already paid by the retailer as per law. Even if the retailer sells goods at a discounted price, he is not entitled to charge any other tax from the customer on a product which mentions the Maximum Retail Price (inclusive of all taxes). As per law even a single penny extra charged on a product then the Maximum Retail Price (inclusive all the taxes) amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice. Bill No.45 of 2014 of the Gazettle of India specifically defines MRP in its Section 2(d) as “Maximum Retail price means such price at which the consumer goods shall be sold in retail and such price shall include all taxes levied on the goods”.  By charging GST extra on the discounted price, the OP No.2 has not only committed deficiency in service, but has also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs before this Forum, therefore, they are proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.12.2019.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith document as Annexure C-1 & C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 Perusal of invoice dated 20.07.2019, Annexure C-2 & online payment receipt Annexure C-1, reveals that the complainant had purchased Revlon New Coral Matte Nail Enamel 523 (8ml) online from the OP No.1, through the website of OP No.2. From the said invoice and online payment receipt, it is evident that MRP of the product in question is of Rs.225/- and the OP No.2 raised the bill of Rs.145/- after giving discount of Rs.102/- and after having added Rs.22/- as GST (CGST+ SGST). It may be stated here that, as per Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Goods (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) Act, 2014, the ‘MRP” means ‘such price at which the consumer goods shall be sold in retail and such price shall include all taxes, levied on the goods’. No extra amount over and above the MRP, printed on the goods, could be charged, even the same has been sold on discount, the MRP has already been included all the taxes levied on the goods. Since the OP No.1 has charged GST (CGST+SGST) 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 committed deficiency in service and is thus, liable to refund the amount of Rs.22/- charged on account of GST and is also liable to compensate the complainant for causing mental agony and physical harassment to him, alongwith litigation expenses. In the case of Shoppers Stop and others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill, First Appeal No.210 of 2015, decided on 01.09.2015, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, has held that “no one can charge more than the M.R.P. and M.R.P. includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is including all the taxes, then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged separately.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPS in the following manner:-

1. To refund Rs.22/-, charged on account of GST, to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :10.02.2020.

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

            Member                             Member                         President