| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 178 of 3.5.2016 Decided on: 11.1.2018 Mukesh Kumar son of Sh.Kamlesh Kumar resident of H.No.175, Ward No.9 Zora Basti, Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus Paytm Headquarters, B-121, Sector 5, NOIDA-201301. …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Asheen Khan, Advocate, counsel for complainant. Sh.Jaspreet Singh, Advocate, counsel for opposite party. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER The complainant placed an order of Apple i Phone 6, 16GB(Space Gray) with the OP on 9.3.2016 vide order No.1590151496 under the offer of the OP. It is further averred that the said mobile set in question was available for an amount of Rs.35/- only along with a sum of Rs.25/- as shipping charges, meaning thereby that the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.60/- only .The complainant placed the order at about 8.25PM on 9.3.2016 and the OP deducted a sum of Rs.60/- from Paytm account No1590151496 at 8.25 PM on 9.3.2016 and the said mobile phone was to be delivered by 17.3.2016 as per the assurance given by the OP. It is further stated that complainant received an e-mail on 10.3.2016 at about 11:41AM from the OP vide which the order of the complainant was cancelled. Further the case of the complainant is that though he requested the OP a number of times to deliver the product but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act), 1986 & has prayed that the OP be directed to provide the mobile phone in question i.e. Apple I Phone 6(16GB) to thecomplainant and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses. On notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. In its reply, it is stated that the OP neither sells nor offer to sell any product. It merely provides a technology platform where independent third party seller can list its products for sale. OP is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the website nor does Paytm intervene or influence any customer in any manner. It is further stated that the OP is not a warrantor of the product nor is liable for any manufacturing defect. It is stated that the complainant is not a consumer. It further stated that there may be certain orders that Paytm Merchant Partners are unable to accept and service and these may need to be cancelled. It is stated that the complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint and the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum is also disputed. On merits, it is stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Paytm. It is stated further that the OP duly replied to the e-mail written by the complainant and informed the complainant about the real picture and also informed that the order of the complainant has been cancelled. As such, OP cannot be said to be deficient in rendering service in any way. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. In support of the complaint, the ld counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant along with documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence. The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sh.M.Sivakumar, authorized representative of the OP alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully. The ld.counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that though the complainant had placed the order of Apple iphone 6 with the OP on 9.3.2016 vide order No.15090151496 under the offer of the OP and under this offer the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.35/- for the said mobile phone alongwith a sum of Rs.25/- as shipping charges meaning thereby that the complainant had to pay a total sum of Rs.60/- for the said product, which were duly paid by the complainant on 9.3.2016 but the same was not delivered to the complainant.Ex.C1 is the copy of the confirmation of the order which shows that the complainant was to pay a total sum of Rs.60/-for the product and also the OP has written that the product would be shipped soon. But the product was not delivered to the complainant.Ex.C2 is the copy of the e-mail dated 9.3.2016 written by the OP wherein it has been clearly mentioned that ‘Order declined by seller, money added to wallet”. The ld.counsel for the complainant has further contended that this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint as the order in question was booked with the OP from Patiala. On the other hand, the stand of the OP is that it neither sells nor offers to sell any product as it provides only technology platform where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. It has not at all harassed the complainant. The amount paid by the complainant was refunded at the earliest on account of cancellation of the order. A bare perusal of the file clearly reveals that the complainant placed the order for the purchase of Apple I phone 6 and paid the amount of Rs.60/- , which was duly accepted by the OP, we feel that the contract of purchase of Apple iphone was completed, but the OP cannot cancel the order at its own, as the contract cannot be dissolved by the OP without the consent of the complainant. As such, we feel that by not fulfilling the contract, the OPs are deficient in rendering service to the complainant. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such we allow the complaint and direct the OP to provide to the complainant, The Apple i phone 6 (16GB Grey Space) for Rs.60/- only and further pay a consideration amount of compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2000/- only. Order be complied by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room. ANNOUNCEDDATED:11.1.2018 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER
| |
