Punjab

Sangrur

RBT/CC/81/2018

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

PAYTM Head Qurters - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Davinder Partap

14 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         RBT Complaint No. 81

 Instituted on :  08.03.2018

                                                                          Decided on   :  14.09.2023       

1. Rakesh Kumar aged about 28 years, S/o Sh. Tarsem Chand resident of Lakhwali Basti, Patran, Tehsil Patran and District Patiala.                                                             …. Complainant.  

                                       Versus

1. PAYTM Headquarters,# B-121, Sector-5, Noida-201301 (Uttar Pardesh) through its MD/CEO Renu Satti.
2. Infinity Infomatic Pvt. Ltd., 301, Eros Apartment, 56, Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its concerned Managing Director/Competent Authority.

                                                            ….Opposite parties. 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                         :  MEMBER

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

For the complainant  : Shri Santosh Kumar, Adv.              

For the Op1              : Shri Saurav Garg,Adv.

For the Op2              : Withdrawn the complaint by

  complainant on 19.11.2018

ORDER BY

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER.

As per orders of the Hon'ble State Commission, vide Endst.No 10226 dated 26.11.2021, the present file received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala vide receipt no.481 dated 30.11.2021 to this Commission.

1. Complainant has alleged in the complaint that complainant has placed orders of total two Apple Iphone-6, 16GB(space grey) each with the Op.number1 on 09.03.2016 under the discount offer, which is offered by Op. As per the said offer the Op's are deliver Apple Iphone-6 @ Rs.35/- only, after total discount of Rs.51965/- on each mobile phone. As such, complainant was paid total Rs. 120/- only for three mobiles out of which an amount of Rs. 70/- for three mobile phones and Rs. 50/- as delivery charges. The amount of Rs. 120/- was deducted from the Bank Account of Complainant. Mails were received by complainant on 10.03.2016 after confirmation of the orders of the above said mobile phones on the website, it was assured by the Op number 1 that your order has been successfully placed and we will ship it soon. On 10.03.2016 complainant got two separate emails from Op number 1 vide which both the orders of the complainant were canceled. Complainant sent many emails vide dated 10.03.2016 and 11.03.2016 to Op number 1 . Complainant served a register legal notice dated 28.02.2018 to the Ops but the Ops did not response the legal notice nor do they accept the genuine request of the complainant. Ops may kindly be directed to deliver two Apple Iphone-6, 16GB(space Grey) mobiles each to the complainant for total of Rs. 120/-. Ops may kindly be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, tension, harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as  costs of Litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, Op number 1 has appeared and filed written reply and complainant made a separate statement dated 19.11.2018 that the complainant has withdrawn the complaint against Op number 2. Op number 1 in his written statement taking preliminary objection that Paytm E-Commerce (P) Ltd i.e. Op number 1 is the owner of website
3. Complainant has tendered into evidence Ex. C-A affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence. Similarly, Op number 1 tendered into evidence Ex. Op-A affidavit of Sh. Lokesh Sugandh, Authorized Representative of Paytm along with documents Ex. Op-1 to Ex.Op-5 and closed the evidence.
4. We had heard the learned counsel of both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the parties. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsel of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings. So, there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition. Now come to major controversy, whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer or not?
5. It is writ large on the file Ex.C-1 is a detail of Bill Payment. On 09.03.2016 two entries of Rs. 60/- each and total of Rs.120/- debited from Paytm Wallet of the complainant. From the perusal of Ex.C-2 an Email received by complainant with regard to order number 1590071145 Wednesday, March 09, 2016. It is mentioned that "Your order has been successfully placed and we will ship it soon. You will receive a separate email once your order ships." An item ordered by complainant regarding Apple Iphone (supra). The seller name mentioned as infinity Infomatic Pvt. Ltd. Quantity was one, price Rs. 52,000/-, delivery date was 17.03.2016 for an amount of Rs. 35/-. Whereas, Ex.C-3 it is shown that order number 1590081162 dated 09.03.2016 item quantity mentioned as total one of Rs. 52,000/- Apple Iphone (supra) against amount of Rs. 35/-. Ex.C-4 & C-5 are the same documents in which complainant received an email dated 10.03.2016 from Op number1 and mentioned as "we regret to inform you that the merchant infinity Infomatic Pvt. Ltd. is unable to deliver your order for Apple Iphone due to unavoidable circumstances. We tried our best to ensure that you get the order product and feel very sad canceling this item from your order. As per Ex.C-6 & C-7 are  the copy of email dated 10.03.2016 & 11.03.2016 sent by complainant to Op number 1 regarding orders number 1590081162 & 1590071145 cancelled after being placed. It is mentioned as per Ex.C-8 & C-9 are copies of mail order Cancelled by Op.1 received by complainant. Ex.C-10 is a legal notice issued by complainant on 28.02.2018 to Ops. Ex.C-11 & 12 are the postal receipts of legal notice.
6. Per contra, from the perusal of Ex.Op-A affidavit filed by Lokesh Sugandh, authorized representative of Paytm i.e. Op.1 pleaded at para number 11 of reply opening lines of last para that Op.1 is not the seller. The goods have been bought by the complainant from Op.2 selling its products on the website of Op.1. Complainant booked his order on the platform of Op.1(Paytm). This fact is admitted by Op.1 at para number 12 of the affidavit which is Ex.Op.A as per clause 6 of terms and conditions as available in the website of the Op.1. Seller are unable to accept and service these may need to be cancelled, which was duly accepted by the complainant while placing the order. As per Ex.Op.3 are guidelines for foreign direct investment of e-commerce clause 2.3(VIII) provides that in market place model, any warrantee/guarantee of goods and services of sold will be responsiblity of the seller. This Commission has examined the documents Ex.Op.2 and Op.3 from the perusal of these documents the Ops are measurably failed to prove this factum that Ops have displayed the terms and condition regarding the guidelines of e-commerce on the website of Op.1. No cogent evidence on record with regard to uploaded the terms and conditions and guidelines of e-commerce of Ops displayed on their website. From this angle the stand of Op.1 is falsified.
7. Essential for a valid contract- to form a contract there must be an agreement between the parties. Agreement is created by offer and acceptance. It is result of mutual exchange of promises between the parties. Present case in hand, both the parties are full filed the essential element of a valid contract.  No party can violate the terms and conditions of the contract. There is a general offer/ proposal offered by the Ops and acceptance by the complainant and consideration also made by the complainant. The stand of Ops with regard to cancel the item after acceptance is not genuine before the eye of law. In the light of these essential of a valid contract the Ops are liable to provide the product to the complainant. We feel that Ops had joined hands to befool the consumer by confirming the booking of the product and after that canceling the same product. The act of the Ops is a clear cut case of deficiency in service qua the complainant. Hence, the Ops cannot escaped from their liabilities for providing the booked item i.e. Apple Iphone(supra) to the complainant.
8. Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present complaint in hand we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Op number 1 to provide two Apple Iphone-6, 16GB(space grey) to the complainant. If the same mobile model is not available then Op number 1 will refund the amount i.e. Rs. 52,000 x 2 =Rs. 1,04,000/- in total to the complainant.
9. This order be complied by Op.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of order.
10. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
11. The file be return to the District Consumer Commission, Patiala. The Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules by the District Consumer Commission, Patiala.  

                                Announced.

                                14^th September, 2023.

( Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)   (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                        Member                  President