Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/128/2018

Navneet Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Little App-Little Internet Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

30 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	128 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	27.2.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	30.07.2018

 

 

 

 

Navneet Jindal s/o Sh.Ram Lal Jindal, Aged 29 years, R/o H.No.1195, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh.     

 

             ……..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Little App-Little Internet Pvt. Ltd. 11^th KM, BPL Campus, Bannerghatta Road, Arekare, Bangalore 560076 through its Manager/ Authorised Person/Owner/managing Director/ Director.

 

2]  The Director/Managing Director of Little Internet Pvt. Ltd. 11^th KM, BPL Campus, Bannerghatta Road, Arekare, Bangalore 560076

 

3]  Buffet 35 (name of the company, if any, shall be disclosed by the said Restaurant) through its Manager/Managing Director, having registered address SCO 349-350, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. 

 

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH. RAVINDER SINGH        MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Complainant in person.

Sh.Vishal Sharma, Authorised Agent of OPs No.1 & 2.

OP No.3 exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                The case of the complainant, briefly is that the complainant with a view to celebrate his marriage anniversary, come across one of the deals whereby the dinner buffet was being offered with 23% discount with OP No.3.  It is averred that the complainant booked the said deal with Opposite Party No.1 & 2 with a view to enjoy heavy discount of 23% and as such, the deal price was shown as Rs.549/- and after offering the discount of Rs.100/- i.e. 23%, the same was shown to be Rs.449/- for the dinner buffet.  The complainant purchased 7 coupons for his family members (Ann.C-1 & C-2).   However, when the complainant along with his family members, visited Opposite Party No.3 for having the dinner, as booked, he was surprised to see the rate card displayed on the table of OP No.3 reflecting that the deal price is Rs.499/- for veg dinner including the tax paid to government (Ann.C-3 & C-4). It is also submitted that there is no difference in the menu and the items served were same as shown on the menu card (Ann.C-5).  It is pleaded that the OPs minted the money in the name of discount, as such, the actual discount of Rs.700/- was never paid to the complainant, which was shown on the mobile application. The complainant brought this matter with Opposite Parties but to no avail.  It is also pleaded that though there was discount in the deal which comes out to Rs.350/- total as the actual payment done was Rs.3143/- and the payment without deal comes out to Rs.3493/- but the act of Opposite Parties in showing heavy discount and then not actually passing it on is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The OPs No.1 & 2 have filed reply stating that it merely provides an Online marketplace where independent third party merchants can list their products/deals for sale and the merchants themselves are responsible for their respective listing, products/deals on the website.  It is stated that answering OPs are neither responsible for the products/deals that are listed on the Website by various third party merchants, nor does the answering OPs intervene or influence any customers in any manner, as the answering Opposite Parties are not involved in the transaction between the customer and merchant.  It is also stated that the deal was purchased by the complainant with their merchant i.e. Buffet 35 (merchant) on the platform of answering OPs and thereby the role of the answering OPs is limited to that of a facilitator.  It is further stated that the relationship shared between the answering OPs and merchant is on a principal to principal basis. 

         It is submitted that the deal price and discount, if any, as in the present case, are solely decided by the merchant. Moreover, the complainant in his own complaint admitted that the deal in the present case was provided by Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Merchant and not the answering OPs.  It is also submitted that there was no loss as such suffered by the complainant nor the complainant proved any loss due to incorrect pricing by the merchant. Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

         Opposite Party No.3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OPs No.1 & 2.

 

4]        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, authorised agent of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The evidence putforth by the complainant clearly establish that the two fold unfair trade practice has been resorted to by OPs. The evidence before us is enough to establish that in order to allure the gullible consumers, the Opposite Party No.3 offered discount on Veg. Dinner Buffet & Soft Drink @23% on the website of OPs No.1 & 2.

 

7]       The record reflects that the offer so made was not made with the true intention to fulfill the same.  Indulging into unfair trade practice, the OPs firstly disclosed a wrong price of the offer using the portal of OPs No.1 & 2 as the price showing in its Menu Card  (Ann.C-3) is shown as Rs.499/- whereas while floating offer of 23% discount, it mentioned the price for the same @Rs.549/-.  The Opposite Party No.3 is not only guilty of disclosing the wrong price, but is also guilty of not passing the actual discount to the complainant.  As stated above that the Opposite Party No.3 disclosed the price of the Veg. Buffet @Rs.549/- and offered 23% discount i.e. Rs.126/- each on the listed price, which on calculation comes out be Rs.2961/- for 7 persons, whereas, the complainant was made to pay Rs.499/- each totally Rs.3143/- i.e. Rs.182/- in excess. That means the complainant was not passed on the full discount as offered. The above discussion is sufficient enough to hold that the unfair trade practice resorted to by the Opposite Party No.3 has not only caused wrongful loss to the complainant, but also caused mental harassment. 

 

8]       The absence of Opposite Party NO.3 despite being duly served, resulted in declaring it as exparte.  The non-appearance of the Opposite Party NO.3 draws an adverse inference that it either admits the claim of the complainant or is nothing to explain in its defence.  In this view of the matter, the Opposite Party No.3 is held liable to compensate the complainant for the unfair trade practice resorted to and for causing harassment too.  Since, Opposite Party No.1 & 2 allowed the unscrupulous activities of Opposite Party No.3 by allowing it to use its portal, so is also liable being part & parcel of the same. 

   

9]       In view of the above findings, the present complaint stands allowed.  The Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 3 are jointly & severally directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him harassment and thrusting unwarranted litigation and of course the Opposite Party No.3 is also liable to pay additional amount ofRs.5000/- to the complainant for indulging into unfair trade practice.   

         This order shall be complied with Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant apart from the above relief.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30^th July, 2018                                          

                                                                                      Sd/-  

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER