Haryana

Karnal

CC/578/2022

Ms. Tanvi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Myntra Designs Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amish Goel

05 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No. 578 of 2022

                                                      Date of instt.12.10.2022

                                                      Date of Decision:05.10.2023

 

Ms. Tanvi daughter Shri Naveen Kumar Gandhi, resident of house no.2240, sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. M/s Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Directors, Directors, CEO and authorized person at 3^rd floor, AKR tech Park, 7^th mile Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu Gate, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka, India

Also at:-

Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd. 11^th floor, flat no.1106, 1107, 26 Kailash, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

 

2. Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd. Embassy Industrial Park, village Pathredi, Taoru Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, Bhiwadi, Haryana-122413.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Amish Goel, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Pawan Deep Kalyan, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary, member)

ORDER:

   

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that OP no.1 is the company which provides the commerce platform to the sellers. The OP no.2 is the private limited company, which is selling its products online on the e-commerce platform of OP no.1. Complainant purchased one pair of shoes of Puma Company model PUMACASH6102309 from the site of OP no.1 through online. OP no.2 sold the said shoes of amounting to Rs.3699/-, vide invoice dated 29.08.2022. Complainant received the shoes on 31.08.2022. Complainant shocked to see that the shoes delivered to her do not match with shoes which the complainant saw on the e-commerce platform site of OP no.1 and further delivered shoes were not branch new rather the shoes delivered to the complainant was already used. There was dust at the bottom of the shoes. The complainant registered the complaint in this regard with the OP no.1 and selected the returned option and OP no.1 refunded the amount of said product. But still the OPs are liable for unfair trade practice and cheating which OPs committed towards the complainant. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.10,00000/-on account of harassment, mental agony and Rs.55000/- towards the litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version stating therein that Myntra Platform is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customer. The independent third party sellers use the Myntra platform to list, advertise and offer to sell their products to the users/buyers who visit the said platform. In the present complaint, the actual seller of the product is a third party seller i.e. OP no.2 and not the OP. Hence, the request for replacement/refund made by the complainant cannot be fulfilled by the OP. The complainant has wrongly arrayed the OP in the present complaint. The OP is not involved in the entire transaction executed between the seller and the complainant. The OP has no knowledge whether the original and intact product was delivered to the complainant or not, as the OP has no role/involvement in delivering the said product to the complainant at his address and it is submitted that the seller is responsible for the delivery of the product. It is further stated that the complainant informed the seller i.e. OP no.2 and OP no.2 is ready to refund the amount and the refund of Rs.3699/- was initiated on 01.09.2022 i.e. next day after the date of delivery of product. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version stating therein that the OP is engaged in the sale of goods manufactured and produced by other manufacturers. OP has separate and distinct identity from that of the Myntra Designs i.e. OP no.1 and there is no relation of principal and agent between the OP and the manufacturer. The OP categorically denies the allegation of the complainant because the product was delivered in the sealed pack box in original and intact condition through a third party courier service provider as it was received by the manufacturer/distributor. The third party courier service provider and manufacturer/distributor is not impleaded as a party to this complaint. Complainant never approached the OP regarding the alleged issue. It is further pleaded that the refund of Rs.3699/- was initiated on 01.09.2022 i.e. next day after the date of delivery of product. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, copy of bill invoice dated 29.08.2022 Ex.C5, copy of confirmation of return Ex.C6, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.C6, copy of Pen drive view of defective/used shoes Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 28.03.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms. Sanchi Chhabra Ex.OP1/A, copy of press note Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 29.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

 7.            We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 29.08.2022, complainant placed an order for purchasing of a pair of shoes amounting to Rs.3699/- from the OPs through online. The said shoes was delivered to complainant on 31.08.2022. Complainant opened the box and shocked to see that were not branch new rather the same was already used. There was dust at the bottom of the shoes. The complainant registered the complaint in this regard with the OP no.1 and selected the returned option and OP no.1 refunded the amount of said product. But still the OPs are liable for unfair trade practice and cheating which OPs committed towards the complainant and prayed for allowing the complaint with heavy compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment etc.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that Myntra Platform is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customer. In the said complaint, the actual seller of the product is a third party seller i.e. OP no.2 and not the OP no.1. The request for replacement/refund made by the complainant cannot be fulfilled by the OP no.1. The product was delivered in the sealed pack box in original and intact condition through a third party courier service provider as it was received by the manufacturer/distributor. The third party courier service provider and manufacturer/distributor is not impleaded as a party to this complaint. Complainant never approached the OP no.2 regarding the alleged issue. The refund of Rs.3699/- was initiated on 01.09.2022 i.e. next day after the date of delivery of product and prayed for dismissal the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Complainant placed an order on 29.08.2022 for purchasing of one pair of shoes and made payment of Rs.3699/- in this regard. The said shoes were delivered to her on 31.08.2022. When complainant opened the box, it was found that shoes delivered to her was already used. Complainant made a complaint in this regard to the OPs and on receipt of complaint OPs have refunded the cost of the shoes on 01.09.2022. It has been proved from the refund order, the shoes sent by the OP was already used. Thus, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice while sending the already used shoes. The OPs have already refunded the cost of the shoes. Hence, the complainant is only entitled for compensation on account of mental agony and litigation expenses.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account mental harassment, pain and agony suffered by her and towards litigation expenses. Both the OPs are liable to pay the awarded amount jointly and severally. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:05.10.2023                                

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                          Member                      Member