Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 700
Instituted on : 19.12.2019
Decided on : 08.07.2024
Anil Kumar age 28 years, s/o Jaipal R/o Village-Kasani Teh. & Distt. Jhajjar at present Agro Mall, MDU Gate No.2, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- PayTM Mall, Head Office B-121, Sector-5, Estate Officer H.S.V.P, Sector-5, Noida-201301 through its Manager/Director.
- City Electronics 3, Harisava Street Kidderpore Kolkata-700023(West Bengal) through its Manager.
- Gati Ltd. Plot no.20 Survey No.(SY)12, Kothaguda Kondapur Hyderabad-500084 through its Manager.
- Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-18, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi-44, through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Anand Kumar Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Munish Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Vijay Dangi, Advocate for opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.2 & 4 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that on 24.10.2019, he placed an order for purchase of Sony Alpha ILCE-6400L 24.2 MP Mirrorless digital SLR Camera through PayTM Mall vide order ID No.9520403323 and made the payment of Rs.79870/- through credit card. The camera was delivered to the complainant on 06.11.2019 through Gati Courier and when the complainant opened the box in the presence of delivery boy, he was shocked to see that the camera was old and damaged. The complainant immediately taken the photographs and has reported the matter on customer care number of Paytm Mall. The concerned official assured to send a new camera to the complainant within 2-3 days. In the evening the company officials demanded the photos of damaged camera and the same were sent by the complainant. On 08.11.2019 opposite party again demanded the photos and the same were sent by the complainant on the portal of Pay-TM Mall. But the company officials have clearly refused to accept their liability and replace the camera of the complainant. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of camera i.e. Rs.79870/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its purchase till its actual realisation and to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to opposite party No.2 & 4 through registered post not received back either served or unserved and as such after expiry of statutory period of 30 days, opposite party No.2 & 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.02.2020 of this Commission.
3. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that opposite party no.1 acts only as an intermediary between seller and buyer. It does not have any control over the transactions between the Merchant/Seller i.e. opposite party No.2, Courier agency and the buyer/complainant. Opposite party no.1 has no control or role at all over the existence of the product, packaging or delivery of the product. Opposite party No.1 being an intermediary also approached the opposite party No.2 & 3 and both the Seller/Merchant and the courier service has confirmed that the product which was ordered by the complainant was packed and delivered to the complainant’s given address in intact condition. The opposite party No.2 also shared the video footage and an undertaking with opposite party No.1 to this effect. Hence on the basis of above findings, the complainant’s claim was rejected by the opposite party No.1. However, any fault or deficiency, if any, exist then the onus lies on the opposite party no.2 & 3.
4. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that opposite party No.3 is a courier service provider company, in relation to the product which owned by the complainant from opposite party No.1. The respondent no.3 is not liable to compensate or any other grievance rather than their services which respondent no.3 provides in their business. Complainant never visited or contacted the opposite party No.3 in any manner. Opposite party No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation amount to the complainant in any manner and the said complaint was filed only to harass the opposite party No.3. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed his evidence on 25.08.2022. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A, documents Ex.OPW1 to Ex.OPW6 and closed his evidence on 20.09.2023. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and closed his evidence on 09.01.2024.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case opposite party No.1 is an intermediary, opposite party No.2 is seller, opposite party no.3 is courier service and opposite party no.4 is the manufacturer. As per the complainant, he purchased a camera from the website of opposite party No.1 and the same was old and used one. Information of the same was given to the opposite party on the same day. Respondent no.1 has pleaded that he is only providing the platform to the sellers and purchasers, so he is not liable for any defect in the product. As per our opinion, the complainant received the product and found that the product was an old and damaged one, after that he immediately contacted the customer care of the respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 has submitted that after receiving the complaint from the complainant, respondent no.1 being an intermediary approached the opposite party no.2 & 3 and found that the product was delivered to the complainant in intact condition. He further submitted that the respondent no.2 shared the video footage with the respondent no.1 in this regard. But this video footage has not been placed on record by the respondent no.1 before this Commission for perusal. Moreover this video has also not been shared by the respondent no.1 with the complainant. We have minutely perused the photographs placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C4 to Ex.C8. The perusal of these photographs shows that the camera is old and used one. Moreover the complainant just after receiving the product, immediately approached the respondent no.1 and also communicated through email/SMS, which is placed on record as Ex.C9 to Ex.C12. Initially the complainant moved an application to refund the amount but the opposite party refused to process the claim of the complainant and apologize for the same. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 and 4 did not appear before this Commission and were proceeded against exparte which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations levelled against opposite party no.2 & 4 stands proved. The camera in question was defective from the very beginning i.e. from the time of its delivery to the complainant which is not replaced by the opposite parties despite repeated requests of the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1, 2 & 4 and opposite party no.1, 2 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1, 2 & 4 jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.79870/-(Rupees seventy nine thousand eight hundred and seventy only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.12.2019 to till its realisation to the complainant. Opposite party No.1, 2 & 4 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to hand over the camera in question to the opposite parties at the time of making payment by them.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
08.07.2024
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
