Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 302
Instituted on : 13.04.2021
Decided on : 05.09.2023
Meera age 45 years wife of Sh. Sunil resident of H.No.788/10, Gali no.6, Gaukaran Park, Roop nagar, Rohtak, Haryana.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Myntra Corporate Office at Plot No.82A , Sector-18, Gurugram, Haryana-122015 through its Chairman.
- Myntra Customer Care office at 3rd Floor, AKR Tech. Park, 7th Mile Krishan Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu Gate, Banglore-560068(Karnataka) through Managing Director.
- Delhi RPC, Shed-B Khasra No.98/3, 4, 5/1/1, 103/23, 24, 25/2/2 Village Farukhnagar, Gurugram-122506 through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Surender Laura Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 & 2.
Opposite party No.3 already exparte.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that she had ordered one pair of shoes and one upper top on dated 28.02.2021 online through Myntra application/website and both the articles were delivered to the complainant on dated 02.03.2021 vide parcel bar code no.ML0506125860 and the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1798/- in cash at the time of delivery. When the complainant opened the box, she found that both the articles were defective. The shoes and their laces were torn and cartoon which was used for packing of articles was local having no brand logo & price tags on both the articles and no certificate of authenticity. Complainant made aware the respondent telephonically at customer care of the company about the defect of the articles and they told the complainant to make a return request. Complainant made a request on 07.03.2021 . Thereafter the collection person of the respondent came to collect the above said article and he only collected upper top and refused to collect the shoes after saying that “there is no price tag on shoes” whereas the same was not found at the time of receiving the same. Complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the defective shoes but any heed was not paid to her requests. Complainant also requested to provide the CCTV footage while the products were packed but they did not provide the footage to the complainant. The act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1249/- paid for the defective shoes alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receiving of the items, to pay Rs.50000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.33000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that answering opposite party only acts as an intermediary through its web interface www.Myntra.com and provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products to the users at the Myntra Platform. The answering opposite party does not directly or indirectly sells any products on Myntra Platform. It is further submitted that the answering opposite party has no facilities or role to provide return or replacement of the said product because it is provided by the seller and it is seller’s liability to provide refund or replacement of the said product to the complainant. The actual seller of the product is a third party seller and even the refund or replacement is only provided by the seller. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 & 2 and dismissal of complaint has been sought. Notice sent to opposite party No.3 through registered post not received back. Track report also submitted by the counsel for the complainant regarding delivery of the items. Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3 and as such opposite party No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.09.2021 of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19 and closed his evidence on dated 06.09.2022. Ld. counsel for opposite party no. 1 & 2 made a statement that reply already filed in this case be read in evidence as affidavit, tendered document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on dated 14.07.2023.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the complainant, she had ordered one pair of shoes and one upper top on dated 28.02.2021 online through Myntra application/website and on delivery of the articles on dated 02.03.2021 and the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1798/-. When the complainant opened the box, she found that both the articles were defective. Complainant made a return request on 07.03.2021 but the collection person of the opposite parties only collected upper top and refused to collect the shoes after saying that “there is no price tag on shoes” whereas the same was not found at the time of receiving the same. To prove his case complainant has placed on record copy documents Ex.C/1 to Ex.C/14, which shows that the shoes sent by the opposite party were in damaged condition. Hence from the alleged documents it is proved that defective shoes have been supplied to the complainant by the opposite parties. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the price of shoes to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.1249/-(Rupees one thousand two hundred and forty nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.13.04.2021 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to hand over the shoes in question to the opposite parties at the time of making payment by the opposite parties.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.09.2023
………………………………...........
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
