Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/236/2016

Kavish gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paytm Headquarters - Opp.Party(s)

Jaimini Tiwari

11 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/236/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	05/04/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	11/08/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Kavish Gupta, R/o H.No. 3448, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

[1]  Paytm Headquarters, B-121, Sector 5, Noida – 201301, through its Authorized Representative.

 

[2]  Infinity Informatics, #201, 58, Sahyog Building Nehru Place Delhi – 110019, through its Authorized Representative.

 

[3]  Infinity Informatics Pvt. Limited, #301 Eros Apartment 56, Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019, through its Authorized Representative.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Ms. Jaimini Tiwari, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate.
For OP Nos.2 & 3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had ordered an Apple iPhone 6, 16 GB (Space Grey), under promotional Scheme, on the website of Opposite Party No.1, at the price of Rs.60/-, including shipping charges, vide Order No. 1589993870 on 09.03.2016. The cost of the mobile handset was Rs.42,389/-. The Complainant also received an e-mail of order confirmation and the estimated date of delivery date was 17.03.2016. On 10.03.2016, the Complainant received an e-mail from Opposite Party No.1 stating that the order would be shipped in 1-2 days. However, to his utter shock, the Opposite Party No.1 vide another email intimated that his order was cancelled by Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 due to unavoidable circumstances and refund had been initiated. Thereafter, the Complainant wrote a number of e-mails to the Opposite Party No.1 to deliver the product at the offered price, but to no success. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. Since, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply has stated that it acts only as a facilitator and thus, it does not have any privity of contract with the Complainant. The Complainant has not bought any goods from the Opposite Party No.1. The alleged product in contention was bought by the Complainant from an independent third party seller (OPs No.2 & 3) selling its products on the website operated by the Opposite Party No.1. It has been pleaded that due to inadvertent error in the catalogue which was beyond the control of the Opposite Party No.1, the order booked by the Complainant was cancelled and the amount paid by him while booking the order was refunded subsequently. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 have been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the Ld. Counsel for contesting Parties and also perused the record, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.     Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has contended vehemently that the Complainant ordered an Apple iPhone 6, 16 GB (Space Gray) under a promotional Scheme, on the website of Opposite Party No.1, at the price of Rs.60/- including shipping charges. Annexure C-1 is the screen shot of the order history; whereas, Annexure C-2 is an e-mail received by the Complainant about confirmation of the order. On perusal of Annexures C-3 to C-8, we find that the order of the Complainant was cancelled owing to catalogue issue on the website of the Opposite Party No.1 and Rs.60/- paid by the Complainant was added to his Paytm Wallet.

 

8.     Per contra, the stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 is that it being an online marketplace, is not responsible at all in the entire episode and that after cancellation of the order, the amount paid by the Complainant while booking the order was refunded subsequently, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on its part.

 

9.     It is important to note that the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted.

 

10.     We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It may be mentioned that in the aspect of law, a contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties which contains element of a valid legal agreement which is enforceable by law. An agreement is said to be reached when an offer offered by the offeree has been accepted by the acceptor as an acceptance. In the present case, the Opposite Parties offered an Apple iPhone 5, 16 GB (Space Grey) under promotional scheme, which offer was accepted by the Complainant and this fact is fortified from Annexures C-1 and C-2 respectively. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that there was a valid contract between the parties. Once the offer of the Opposite Parties was accepted by the Complainant for a certain price which was Rs.60/-, it amounts to a valid contract as it has all the ingredients of a valid contract namely, offer, acceptance and consideration. Pertinently, since Opposite Party No.1 being an online market place received Rs.60/- against Order No. 1589993870 towards the booking of an Apple iPhone 6, 16 GB (Space Gray) from the Complainant and Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are the Sellers of the said product, we feel that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 had joined hands to befool the gullible and susceptible consumers firstly, by confirming the booking and thereafter, cancelling the same, coining the excuse of catalogue issue. Hence, Opposite Parties cannot escape their liability for providing the booked product i.e. Apple iPhone 6, 16 GB (Space Gray) to the Complainant. In our opinion, due to the lackadaisical and irresponsible attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has certainly suffered a lot for no fault of him. 

 

11.     In view of our above discussion, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and as such, we allow the Complaint and direct Opposite Parties to provide the Complainant the Apple iPhone 6, 16 GB (Space Gray) to the Complainant at Rs.60/- only and further to pay a consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.

 

12.     The above said order be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties. The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

11^th August, 2017                                      Sd/-    

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                         Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”