Fatehgarh Sahib


Ajay Pal Singh - Complainant(s)


Myntra Deisgns Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Karamveer singh

02 May 2023




                      FATEHGARH SAHIB.




CC/472 of 2018

Consumer  Complaint No.




Date of Institution



Date of Decision




Ajay Pal Singh S/o Late Surinder Singh , aged 56 R/o H. No.408 1st Floor, Gillco Valley Sector 127, Kharar Mohali (PB) 140301.   




  1. Myntra Designs Private Ltd., (MYNTRA COM), through its Managing Director, Address: AKR Tech Park-B Block, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, 7th Mile, Kudlu Gate, Bengaluru-560068
  2.  Puma Sports Pvt. Ltd, through its Managing Director Address: no.509, CMH Road Indranagar,  Bengaluru, Karnataka-560038.    



..………....... Opposite Parties


Complaint under Section 12of Consumer Protection Act 1986(Old)


Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, President

Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member


Present: None for  the complainant.

              None for OP no.1 .

              OP no.2 Ex-Parte vide order dated 21.09.2018


The  complaint has been filed against the OPs (opposite parties)  under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986(Old) alleging deficiency in service with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to refund  Rs.269.82/-  charged as IGST along with interest @ 18% P.A from the  date of purchase till realizations and  to direct OP no.1 to pay Rs.25,000/-  as compensation, to pay Rs.10,000/-  as litigation expenses and to  direct  OP no.2 to pay Rs.25,000/-  as compensation , to pay Rs.10,000/-  as litigation expenses.

  1. The brief facts of the complaint  are that the complainant  made a online  purchase from OP no.1 i.e Myntra. which is online  E-market Portal vide invoice no.1000000000190577 . The complainant  purchased a footwear of Puma brand i.e  OP no.2 who is seller of  the product. The  MRP of the footwear was Rs.2,499/- which was inclusive of all the taxes as per the sticker attached on the product . A discount of Rs.1000/- was given on the MRP  i.e Rs.2499/-. After discount  payable price of the footwear was Rs.1499/- but OP charged Rs.1768.82/- from the complainant. OPs charged Rs.269.82/- extra as GST. Hence this complaint.
  2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs through registered Post.  OP no.1 appeared through his Counsel  and filed  written version. Despite service of notice of complaint,  OP No. 2 did not contest the complaint. So, OP No 2 was proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 21.9.2018.         
  3.  The complaint has been contested by the OP  no.1 , filed written version by raising preliminary and legal objections. The price of the product  as shown on the Platform  was unit price  and not as a MRP of the Product.  The OP no.1 is only an online Platform and the products are being  sold by the registered seller.   There is no relation between OP no.1 and  OP no.2 i.e seller  as Principal and Agent as both are independent companies.  IGST  was charged by the seller  not by OP no.1. The OP no.1 is only a intermediary and not a seller.   Hence, prayer for dismissal of complaint  with cost has been made.
  4. The complainant in support of his complaint tendered in evidence his  affidavit Ex.CW1/1,  and  Photo copies of documents i.e ExC1 bill,  Ex.C2  sticker of  MRP of product. In rebuttal the OP no.1 tendered Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Nikhil Aggarwal Authorized Signatory,  Ex.OP1 Board Resolution , Ex.OP2 wishlist and closed their evidence.
  5.   Case  had been called several times during the day. Neither the complainant nor  the OP no.1and any of their representative  appeared on their behalf . Since  the complaint pertains to April 2018 therefore,  we proceed to decide the complaint on merit on the grounds advanced before us by both the parties. 
  6.   From the perusal of the file, it  transpires that  the complainant made an online purchase from OP no.1 who is an online  platform  owned  &  operated by Myntra designs Private Ltd. and is a registered Company. MRP of the footwear  was Rs.2499/- which was  inclusive of the Taxes vide Ex.C2. After discount, sale price of footwear was Rs.1499/- but OPs charged Rs.1768.82/- i.e. Rs.269.82/- more as GST vide Ex.C1.  It is pertinent to note that  most of the MRP  stickers on most of the product s also reflect that MRP  is inclusive of all taxes. MRP of the product means maximum retail price to be paid. It is inclusive of all taxes. It is being advertised by Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India to create awareness among consumers that no extra amount over and above the MRP printed on the goods can be charged. MRP of all products is always inclusive of all kinds of statutory taxes leviable on the said products and hence MRP is the maximum price at which product can be sold. A product can be sold below the MRP but not more than MRP.   It has been seen to be deceitful trend among quite a few retailer and online platforms to charge ‘EXTRA GST’ over and above the net MRP after offering discount on certain products. It amounts to legal plunder of double taxation .  However, such practice is clearly in gross violation of law. No GST will be applicable on the discounted MRP if the discount is offered on the MRP of the product. Since the said MRP (on which discount is offered) is already inclusive of GST(CGST as well as SGST).   It is bounden duty of the  facilitator i.e OP no.1  to  ensure that sellers are not  adopting  any unfair trade practice. Online  portal through  which  goods were purchased can not escape from their liability.  They  have  to ensure the quality of the service or  products coming to its platform for sale or the service which is being provided through it by the  third party.   Vicarious liability of the E-commerce entities including online platforms and by presenting themselves as  mere intermediaries and claiming liability  exemption  Under Section 79  Information Technology  Act 2000 is not applicable . OP no.1 cannot escape from its liability by denying  that he is not the seller.  We observed that  online platforms  like Myntra  & other earns  commercially from  each sale  of the product  listed on its E-commerce platform and can not disassociate itself in cases of issues arising from the sale of  these items. Therefore OPs no.1  and 2 are held  liable for  deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice .
  7. As a corollary of our above discussion  and keeping in view the facts & Circumstances  of the present case  , the present complaint is partly allowed. The OPs no.1 and 2 are directed as under:-

[a] to refund jointly and severally the amount of Rs.269.82/- charged as GST to the complainant along with interest @ 9% P. A from the date of filing of compliant within 30 days, failing which interest @ 12% shall be payable.

          [b] To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 30 days of receipt of certified copy of this order . Failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the above said amount through legalprocess. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period dueto pandemic of Covid-19 and paucity of staff. File be returned back to the District Consumer Commission, Mohali for consignment.

Pronounced 2 May 2023.


                                                                      (S.K. Aggarwal)




                                                                             (Shivani Bhargava)



                                                                             ( Manjit Singh Bhinder )



Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.