Haryana

Karnal

CC/670/2019

Hitesh Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paytm Mall - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jul 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 670 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.27.09.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 02.07.2021

 

Hitesh Garg son of Tarsem Garg, resident of 341-B, ward no.15, near Deep Hospital, Taraori (Karnal).

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.Paytm Mall, B121, B Block, Sector 5, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301.

2. C.K. Enterprises, House no.189, Gulab Bagh, Budh Bazaar, Uttam Nagar, New delhi-110059 (supplier).

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

 

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik……Member 

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Ms. Seema Bhardwaj counsel for OP no.1.

                    OP no.2 given up.

 

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant has purchased an antivirus dated 27.08.2019 with order ID no.9089883909 worth Rs.2200/-. The same courier was received on 31.08.2019. After opening the product on 03.09.2019, it was found that it contain a headphone in place of antivirus. Thereafter, he lodged complaint with complaint No.137626724 stating that the wrong product has been delivered but no response was received from the OPs. Thereafter, complainant filed the various complaints bearing nos.137779872 dated 01.09.2019, 138018824 dated 08.09.2019 and 138197335 dated 10.09.2019. While filing the above complaint the company assured the complainant that his complaint has been transferred to investigation team and they will respond him shortly, but till the time no respond has been received from them. Due to aforesaid act and conduct of OPs and unfair trade practice of OP the complainant has suffered monetary loss, mental harassment also with loss of time (i.e.2 months extension) in re-newing the product  on time and mental agony for which he is entitled Rs.20000/- as compensation on account of harassment. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version stating therein that OP no.1 does not sell any of the goods on the said website directly. OP no.1 provides only online market place platform which facilitates the Merchant/sellers after executing a Market Place Agreement to display/list their goods which are purchased by the buyers after acknowledging/accepting the terms and conditions displayed in the website and at the price determined and displayed by the Merchant/seller i.e. C.K. Enterprises. It is further pleaded that the complainant ordered one Quick Heal Total security (1Pc, 3 Years), vide order ID no.9089883909 on 27.08.2019 worth Rs.2200/- using the online market place platform of the OP no.1. The same was delivered on 31.08.2019. However, the complainant states that instead he was delivered a wrong product i.e. headphone. The complainant insists that he has raised multiple complaints against the Customer Care of the OP no.1, however, he was allegedly that OP no.1 assured that complaint of complainant has been transfer to investigation team and they will respond shortly, but till the time no response has been received from OP no.1 and his grievance remained unsolved. It is further pleaded that the complainant has concealed vital information and facts pertaining to the whole transaction vis-à-vis allegedly wrong product. That upon receipt of the grievance of the complainant on 31.08.2019, OP no.1 with no fault or liability on its part and as per standard procedure promptly requested the complainant to share the images of the product received by the complainant. The complainant shared a few images of an antivirus box, which was the actual product that the customer had ordered with the OP. While validating such images as received by OP no.1 it was established that the complainant had received the correct product i.e. Quick Heal Total Security ( 1Pc, 3years) and thereafter denying the return/refund request. Despite receiving the correct product and response from OP no.1, the complainant filed the present false complaint with malafide intention. It is further pleaded that vide Market place Agreement dated 04.03.2019 entered by OP with the Merchant/seller i.e. C.K. Enterprises, the onus was contractual obligation with respect to any dispute, defect in quality etc. is that of Merchant/seller. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. the other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 given up by the complainant, vide his statement dated 02.03.2021 being unnecessary party.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, invoice Ex.C1, payment detail Ex.C2, extended time detail Ex.C3 and video of product opening (CD) Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 02.03.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ankur Gupta authorized representative Ex.OP1/A, policies (terms and conditions) of OP no.1 Ex.OP2, press note no.2 (2018 series) Ex.OP3, Market place Agreement Ex.OP4, copy of photograph of box of antivirus Ex.OP5, email  dated 09.01.2019 regarding query Ex.OP6 and invoice/bill Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence  on 22.04.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

 7.            Complainant submitted that he has purchased an antivirus on 27.08.2019 vide order ID No.9089883909 for an amount of Rs.2200/- from the website of OP No.1 which was received on 31.08.2019. On opening the product, it was found that it does not contain antivirus rather it is a headphone. Thereafter, he lodged many complaints to the OPs with regard to the wrong product has been delivered, but no response was received from the OPs. He further submitted that the notices were issued on the address of OP No.2 provided by OP No.1 many times, but every times notices were received back unserved with the report of “address shifted” and he requested many times to OP No.1, to provide the correct address but OP No.1 did not provide the correct address of OP No.2 and ultimately, the complainant had no way except to given up OP No.2 by suffering separate statement. He further submitted that both the OPs are in collusion with each other and are harassing the complainant to that extent which compelled the complainant to file the present complaint. Hence, he filed the present complaint and prayed for allowing the same. 

8.             Per-contra, learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that Paytm E-Commerce Pvt. Ltd a company incorporated under the provision of the Companies Act 2013. Paytm Mall & Bazar is an online market place and provides only a platform for different sellers to sell their products and for different buyers to access and purchase amongst variety of goods offered by various sellers subject to the terms and conditions as enumerated on the website of OP No.1. The complainant has concealed vital information and facts pertaining to whole transaction vis-à-vis allegedly wrong product. Upon receipt of the grievance of the complaint on 31.08.2019, the OP No.1 with no fault or liability on its part and as per standard procedure promptly requested the complainant to share images of the product received by him and complainant shared few images of the headphone box and also shared a few images of an antivirus box of actual product that the customer had ordered with OP. While validating such images as received by OP No.1, it was established that the complainant had received correct product and thereafter denying the return/refund request. It is further argued that the present transaction categorically reveals that the product was sold by Merchant/Seller i.e. CK Enterprises and with whom there exists a contract of sale of complainant, therefore, it is evincible that the contract of sale is entered into between the complainant and Seller with no privity of contract between the complainant and OP. Hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

9.             Admittedly the complainant has placed an order of an antivirus through Paytm Mall i.e. OP No.1 and the seller of OP No.1 namely CK Enterprises (OP No.2) had delivered the product at the address of complainant. 

10.           Now the question which is for consideration before us is that whether the complainant has received wrong product or not i.e. headphone instead of antivirus?

11.           In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record a copy of invoice Ex.C1, whereby he has purchased antivirus, copy of credit card statement Ex.C2, whereby he has made the payment for purchasing of antivirus and CD Ex.C4, from where it has been proved that wrong product has been sent by the OPs. 

12.           On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence of complainant, OP No.1 tendered copy of policy Ex.OP2, copy of press-note Ex.OP3, copy of market place agreement Ex.OP4, copy of photograph of box of antivirus Ex.OP5, copy of e-mails Ex.OP6, copy of invoice Ex.OP7. 

13.           From the copy of invoice Ex.C1, it is proved that the complainant has purchased antivirus and that he has received wrong product i.e. headphone which is evident from the CD Ex.C4. However, the OP No.1 has failed to rebut the version of the complainant by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. 

14.           Furthermore, the contention of OP No.1 that it is only a platform to book the product and that the products are being sold by the sellers, therefore, it has no responsibility of any kind. We are of the considered view that the sellers have been authorized by the OP No.1 and the notices were issued to OP No.2 on the address provided by OP No.1 in its written version but every times it had received back unserved. By saying that OP No.1 has no responsibility, the OP No.1 cannot escape from its liability and this plea taken by OP No.1 has no force. As per the version of the complainant, OP No.1 did not supply the correct address of OP No.2 that’s why he has to given up OP no.2. In fact the OP no.1 was duty bound to provide the correct address of OP no.2 being the booking platform. In that situation, the complainant has no other option except to approach this Commission. The complainant had been dragged in an unwanted litigation by the OP for a small amount i.e. Rs.2200/-. 

15.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP No.1 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

16.           As per the invoice Ex.C1, the complainant had purchased product for an amount of Rs.2200/-, hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.2200/- alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses, etc.

17.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.2200/- to the complainant with interest @9% from the date of purchase i.e.31.08.2019 till its realization. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.1000/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, OP no.1 is at liberty to recover the said amount from OP no.2, who has sent the wrong product and in that eventuality OP no.2 is bound to refund the awarded amount. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:02.07.2021

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

           Member                         Member