Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/162/2020

Digvijay Rajdev - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

17 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	162/2020
Date of Institution	:	04.03.2020
Date of Decision	:	17.06.2022

 

                     

            

Digvijay Rajdev r/o H.No.5830, Modern Housing  Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh -160101.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, A Block, AKR Tech Park, 7^th Mile, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu Gate, Bangalore-560068, India.

 

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:
	SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Complainant in person.
	Sh.Atul Sharma, Adv. for the OPs.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.     Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that he booked H&M Men Black Solid Merino Wool Jumper on discounted price of Rs.2699.50 with the OP on 22.12.2019 through its website and paid the advance payment from his HDFC credit card and the same was delivered on 27.12.2019. However, the delivered jumper was a wrong product (Make Sandesh), the design was different (with buttons), product was fake (two different company tags) and even damaged (holes on back side) and as such he put a return request on 28.12.2019 which was put on hold by the OP on 29.12.2019.  In reply to the e-mail dated 29.12.2019, the complainant provided all proofs for the said product and he was in regular follow up with the OP through e-mails (Annexure C-5 [colly.]) but they  always sought time to solve the issue but failed to do so. It has further been averred that the OP vide e-mail dated 12.01.2020 (Annexure C-6) declined the claim and subsequently, the complainant gave a final warning to the OP vide e-mail dated 12.01.2020 regarding the return request (Annexure C-7). Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.  
2.     In its written statement, the OP has stated the Myntra is only a platform that can be utilized by the users  to reach a larger base to buy and sell products or services and the contract for sale of any of the products or services shall be a strictly bipartite contract between the seller and the buyer and at no time shall Myntra hold any right, title or interest over the product nor shall Myntra have any obligations or liabilities in respect of such contract.  It has further been stated that the OP has duly raised the grievance raised by the complainant to the seller and the seller of the product intimated that the right product in intact condition was supplied. It has further been stated that even if the averments made by the complainant are true then still the OP has no role in the transaction entered into the complainant and the seller.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     We have heard the Counsel for the parties  and have gone through the documents on record.
4.     The perusal of the documentary evidence especially the photographs on record reveals that the complainant was delivered a wrong jumper (Make Sandesh), the design was different (with buttons), product was fake (two different company tags) and even damaged (holes on back side). Besides this, the return request made by the complainant 28.12.2019 was put on hold by the OP on 29.12.2019. The OP has failed to resolve the grievance raised with it even providing all proofs by the complainant for the product in question. Neither the product has been changed nor the amount has been refunded despite his requests. 
5.     We do not find any merit in the contentions of the OP because the product supplied to the complainant was not the same one which was booked by him and rather the same was a duplicate one and defective one. The OP, in our considered opinion, has acted arbitrarily in the matter.  As provenly, the order in question was placed with it and it is the prime duty of the OP to ensure the delivery of genuine product to the end consumer. It is a reasonable presumption that the seller using the platform of the OP for selling their products are verified and genuine sellers. The OP cannot be allowed to shift its onus upon seller escaping its liability.  The OP being liable to ensure delivery of genuine product remained deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant. 
6.      From the above discussion and findings, the deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been proved, which certainly has caused harassment to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the OP with direction to refund cost of the product in question so paid by the complainant and also to pay compensation cost of Rs.3,500/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 
7.     This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay additional compensation cost of Rs.1,000/- apart from above relief. However, the complainant shall also return the product so received by him to the OP on receipt of above awarded amount. 
8.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced 17/06/2022
	Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) PRESIDING MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER