Haryana

Karnal

CC/296/2018

Sarika Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paytm Head Quarter - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Singh Chaudhary

29 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 296 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 31.10.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 29.03.2019

Sarika Kumari wife of Vishal resident of 211-L, Model Town, Karnal Haryana.

                                                                           …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

Paytm head quarter, One 97 Communication, B-121, Sector-5, Noida-201301 (UP).

RGD office at 1^st floor, Devika tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 through its authorized signatory.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Vishal Kundi Advocate for complainant.

                  Ms. Seema Bhardwaj Advocate for opposite party.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant has purchased a camera for her husband in his name and made the payment from her credit card. The camera make was canon M50 and it was purchased from the OP, vide order no.6243653352 on 10.10.2018. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.56498/- to the OP as cost price of the said product. The product was dispatched by the OP on 11.10.2018 and was committed to be delivered by the OPs on 12.10.2018. The various promotional offers running at the time of this purchase resulted in cash back of Rs.6000/- by the OP and Rs.2500/- by the participating bank, ICICI in this case. Therefore, the final price of the product was to be Rs.48000/- approximately. The complainant kept tracking the movement of the shipment through tracking number 1369718555616. As per the tracking report the shipment was delayed and reached Panipat on 13.10.2018. The complainant kept waiting for the product but ultimately when she did not receive the same by 15.10.2018, she complained to the OP through complaint number 91308125. The OP promised to deliver the product at the earliest. The complainant again made complaint no.91785573 to the OP on 19^th October regarding the delay in delivery but all in vain. Ultimately, the complainant was told by the customer care of OP on 19.10.2018 morning that the product will be delivered on 21^st October. However, in the evening when the complainant checked the status of order it transpired that the order has been cancelled. The complainant immediately called the OP and they admitted their fault and felt sorry for not delivering the product on time. When the complainant enquired that why her consent was not taken before cancelling the order, they had no reply and apologized to the same. The customer care also offered to deliver the product on time if it was ordered again but when the complainant checked the website the price of the same camera had been increased to Rs.57995/- with cash back of only Rs.4000/- and no bank offer. The effective price of the camera on 21^st October was Rs.54000/- approx., a difference of Rs.6000/- from the initial purchase price of the complainant. Ultimately, the complainant had to purchase the same camera from some other website at the cost of Rs.58000/-. In this way there was mal-trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed its written version stating therein that the OP does not sell any of the goods on the said website directly, the OP has provided only online marketplace platform which facilitates the sellers after registering and executing a Market Place Agreement with Merchant/Seller. It is further stated that the complainant had purchased a camera for Rs.56,498/- vide order id 6243653352 dated 10.10.2018 with cash back of Rs.6000/- and Rs.2500/- by ICICI Bank. The complainant alleges that the product was scheduled to be delivered on 12.10.2018 and the same was also dispatched on 11.10.2018. The complainant further alleges that she was not in receipt of the product till 15.10.2018 and that the product was cancelled by OP without taking consent from the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant suffered loss because the cost of the product increased to Rs.57997/- from Rs.56498/- i.e. difference of Rs.1499/- and loss of offer of Rs.2500/- which was given by ICICI Bank being the Bank of the complainant. It is further stated that the OP cannot and ought not be reposed with the liability of the offer of Rs.2500/- which was given by a third party ICICI Bank which is the Bank of the complainant since the same falls exclusive within the domain of complainant’s bank and not OP and imposing liability on OP for the act of an independent third party and that too of the complainant’s bank would tantamount to miscarriage of justice. It is further stated that the loss of Rs.1499/- being the difference of the product, the OP is not liable. It is further stated that the OP promptly established contact vide email dated 29.11.2018 with the courier agency i.e. BusyBees Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and sought clarification and details of AWB 1369718555616 which was with respect to the order id of the present case and pertaining to the issue raised by the complainant. The courier agency , vide email dated 30.11.2018 expressly responded to OP stating that the shipment of the product was pending at their end due to some investigation purpose and since it was pending and delayed at their end, they market the same as RTO (Return to Origin). It is further stated that the amount of the product was already refunded to the complainant on 19.10.2018 itself and apparently it is crystal clear that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant to unnecessarily harass the OP. It is further pleaded that the courier agency i.e. BusyBees Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd who was responsible to deliver the product and also owing to whose action the product was cancelled but complainant has failed to impleaded the same as a party.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 22.1.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Harshal Negi Ex.R1 and document Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 27.02.2019.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that on 10.10.2018 she purchased a camera for her husband and made the payment from her credit card a sum of Rs.56498/- from the OP no.1. The product was dispatched by the OP on 11.10.2018 and was committed to be delivered by the OP on 12.10.2018. The various promotional offers running at the time of this purchase resulted in cash back of Rs.6000/- by the OP and Rs.2500/- by the participating bank ICICI in this cash, therefore, final price of the product was to be Rs.48000/- approximately. The complainant kept awaiting for the product but ultimately when she did not receive the same by 15.10.2018, she complained to the OP through complaint no.91308125. Ultimately, the complainant was told by the customer came of OP on 19.10.2018 morning that the product will be delivered on 21th October. However, in the evening when the complainant checked the status of order it transpired that the order has been cancelled. OP admitted their fault and felt sorry for not delivering the product on time on 21.10.2018. The price of the same camera had been increased to Rs.57995/- with cash back only Rs.4000/- and no bank offer. Ultimately, the complainant had to purchase the same camera from some other website at the cost of Rs.58000/-. Thus, the mal-trade practice and deficiency in service of the OP has resulted in grave harassment, mental tension and agony to the complainant in addition to the financial loss.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the OP is not liable for the offer of Rs.2500/- which was given by the third party ICICI Bank. OP is also not liable for the act of an independent third party and too of the complainant’s bank would tantamount to miscarriage of justice. The alleged loss of Rs.1499/- being the difference of the product, the OP is not the party in breach since the breach of obligation, if any, germinated from Courier agency i.e. BusyBees Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. being an independent third party, who failed to honour their obligation and had return the product to origin i.e. RTO (Return to Origin) instead of dispatching the same. An order gets placed by the complainant using the online platform of OP. The order is then marked to the designated merchant/seller packages the brand box and prepare the consignment and hand it over the same to the third party courter agency i.e. BusyBees Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office, who then gets the consignment delivered at the address provided by the buyer/customer. As the role of the OP is only of a facilitator/intermediary and it does not have any control over the transactions between the merchant/seller i.e. Smart Vision Distributors, Fulfillment Centre/Logistic Service provider i.e. DTDC supply chain solutions Ltd. courier agency i.e. BusyBees Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd and the buyer/customer i.e. complainant. Throughout the entire cycle of the processing of the order, till the delivery of  the product, OP has no control at all over the existence of the product, packaging of the product, delivery of the product. Therefore, the OP cannot be held liable for any of the grievance as alleged by the complainant and prayed for dismiss the complaint.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant booked a camera on the website of OP, vide order no.6243653352 on 10.10.2018. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.56498/- vide credit card E-statement Ex.C1 dated 23.10.2018 to the OP as cost price of the said product. There was cash back of Rs. 6000/- which was to be paid by OP and Rs.2500/- by the participating bank ICICI in cash. Therefore, final price of the product was to be Rs.48,000/-. It is also admitted that the order of the complainant has been cancelled. The price of the same camera had been increased to Rs.57995/- with cash back only Rs.4000/- and no bank offer. It may be reasoned to cancel the order of the complainant. Ultimately, the complainant had to purchase the same camera from some other website at the cost of Rs.58000/-. The OP has failed to provide camera at the price as promised by them. Hence the OP is deficient in service.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and harassment. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 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:29.03.2019                                                                       

                                                                      President,

                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Karnal.

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member