Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/242

Sunny Kumar Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paytm Regional Office - Opp.Party(s)

Sunny Kumar

04 Mar 2020

ORDER

         DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      242 of 2019

Date of Institution :  27.09.2019

Date of Decision :    04.03.2020

Sunny Kumar Advocate Chamber No.86, District Courts, Faridkot.                                                              .....Complainant

                                                

Versus

1. PAYTEM, Regional Office, 144/533, 2^nd Floor, 22^nd Main, 150 feet Ring Road, HSR, Layout 1^st Sector (Agra), Bangalore-560102.
2. BIYNK Marketing Private Limited, c/o Qarmatek Service Private Limited, Shashwat Business Park, 2^nd Floor, Opp.Soma Textile, Rakhiyal Ahmedabad, Gujarat.

..............OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Complainant in person,

             Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              OP-2 Exparte.

cc no.242 of 2019

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the mobile XIAOMI Redmi Note 4 with new one and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

2                   Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one mobile Xiaomi Redmi Note-4 3GB 32 GB Gold having EMEI No.863194036033709 online on payment of Rs.6,999/-on 27.07.2019 and payment was made through net banking. He received the mobile through courier partner of OPs on 3.08.2019 and when he unboxed the courier, he found the mobile  having configuration of 2GB RAM bearing envoice no.SL-BLYN-AHB/01583/19-20dated 31.07.2019. Though complainant placed order for 3GB handset but they sent the 2GB handset worth Rs.6,200/-. Neither the accessory found in the box was of Xiaomi Redmi, nor box

cc no.242 of 2019

handset was of Xiaomi Redmi Company. Complainant raised a return request on 3.08.2019 with PAYTM and alleged handset was picked up on 6.08.2019 without giving return receipt and he got message of rejection of his request without assigning any reason to him. on 8.08.2019, he filed complaint vide reference no.134764870 and stated entire facts alongwith issues of pick up and return and he was assured that prompt action would be taken, but all in vain. On 12.08.2019, said handset was given back without exchange and it was kept by courier partner of OPs and he did not send back the same to OPs. On 19.08.2019, he received a message that mobile handset was not picked up, but it was picked up vide order ID8848394443 and if it was not received then, how rejection order can be updated, that shows the malafide intention of OPs. On 6.08.2019, OPs also sent rejection e-mail to him without going through the merits of his claim. Complainant also issued notice to OPs wherein requested them to replace the said mobile phone, but that also served no purpose. All this act of OPs has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant. He  has prayed for directions OPs to replace the

cc no.242 of 2019

mobile phone and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                    Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 9.10.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                  On receipt of the notice, the OP-1 filed written reply wherein asserted that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable and all the allegations levelled by complainant are false, wrong and incorrect. It is averred that answering OP 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 terms and conditions enumerated on website of OP-1 and thus, it acts only as an intermediary between seller and buyer. It is further averred that answering is not manufacturer or producer of goods, rather it provides online marketplace platform that

cc no.242 of 2019

 

facilitates the merchant or seller after executing a market place agreement to display or list their goods which are purchased by the buyers after acknowledging the terms and conditions displayed on website. Actual contract for sale is directly between the said merchant and complainant.  Moreover, answering OP is not warrantor of the products or services being offered on the paytm platform by various merchants and disputes regarding warranty, guarantee, quality and service are to be decided either by the manufacturer service provider or merchant and answering OP is not liable for any manufacturing defect or faulty product received and for after sale services for any products purchased on paytm platform. Answering OP is not liable for any fault in product purchased by complainant.  It is further averred that role of answering OP is only of a facilitator or intermediary and not of an distributor as alleged by the complainant and it does not have any control over the transactions between merchant/seller and customer/complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

 

cc no.242 of 2019

 

5                                              As per office report, notice issued to OP-2 through registered post did not receive back undelivered. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. Despite several calls and long waiting till 4.30 p.m., no body appeared in the Forum on date fixed either in person or through counsel on behalf of OP-2. Statutory period expired and therefore, vide order dated 20.11.2019, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte.

6                                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-15 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                        In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Lokesh Sugandh as Ex OP-1/1, document Ex OP-1/2 to Ex OP-1/3 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-1.

 

 

cc no.242 of 2019

 

8                                                          We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party no.1.

9                                              From the careful perusal of record placed on file and arguments advanced by parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone worth Rs.6,999/-from OPs against a proper bill dated 27.07.2019 through online mode and payment was made through net banking. He received the same on 3.08.2019 through courier, but when he unboxed the courier, he found that it was not the mobile for which he placed order with Ops. He had placed order for 3GB handset but they sent the 2GB handset worth Rs.6,200/-. Even the accessories found in the box were not of Xiaomi Redmi and box handset was also not of Xiaomi Redmi Company. On return request raised by complainant on 3.08.2019 with PAYTM, the handset was picked up on 6.08.2019 without giving return receipt and he got message of rejection of his request without assigning any reason to him. on 8.08.2019, he filed complaint vide

cc no.242 of 2019

 

reference no.134764870 and stated entire facts alongwith issues of pick up and return and he was assured that prompt action would be taken, but all in vain. On 12.08.2019, said handset was given back without exchange and it was kept by courier partner of OPs and he did not send back the same to OPs. On 19.08.2019, he received a message that mobile handset was not picked up, but it was picked up vide order ID8848394443 and if it was not received then, how rejection order can be updated. It shows the malafide intention of OPs. On 6.08.2019, OPs also sent rejection e-mail to him without going through the merits of his claim. Complainant also issued notice to OPs wherein requested them to replace the said mobile phone, but that also served no purpose. All this act of OPs has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant. In reply, OP-1 asserted that it provides only a platform for sale and purchase to different sellers to sell their products and for different buyers to access and purchase amongst variety of goods offered by sellers subject to terms and conditions given on website of OP-1. OP-1 acts only as an intermediary between seller and buyer and it not the manufacturer or producer of goods. Real

cc no.242 of 2019

 

contract for sale or purchase is directly between the said merchant and complainant and OP-1 is not warrantor of the said product and is not liable for any dispute regarding warranty, guarantee or quality of the product. OP-1 is not liable for any fault in product purchased by complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                            To prove his pleadings complainant counsel has placed on record copy of documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-12 which are copies of documents that show the correspondence occurred between complainant and OPs regarding wrong product sent by Ops to complainant. From the careful perusal of these documents, there remains no doubt that complainant placed an order for mobile Xiaomi Redmi Note-4 3GB 32 GB Gold worth Rs.6,999/-on 27.07.2019 and made payment through net banking. He received mobile as per his order on 3.08.2019 through courier of OPs, but on opening the said courier, he was shocked to find the mobile  having configuration of 2GB RAM bearing envoice no.SL-BLYN-AHB/01583/19-20 dated

cc no.242 of 2019

31.07.2019. Ex C-3 is copy of Invoice dated 31.07.2019. Though order was placed by complainant for 3GB handset but OPs intentionally sent the 2GB handset worth Rs.6,200/-. Complainant raised a return request on 3.08.2019 with PAYTM and alleged handset was picked up on 6.08.2019 without giving return receipt and he got message of rejection of his request without assigning any reason to him. on 8.08.2019, he filed complaint vide reference no.134764870 and stated entire facts alongwith issues of pick up and return and he was assured that prompt action would be taken, but all in vain. On 12.08.2019, said handset was given back without exchange and it was kept by courier partner of OPs and he did not send back the same to OPs. On 19.08.2019, he received a message that mobile handset was not picked up, but it was picked up vide order ID8848394443 and if it was not received then, how rejection order can be updated, that shows the malafide intention of OPs. On 6.08.2019, OPs also sent rejection e-mail to him without going through the merits of his claim. Complainant also issued notice to OPs wherein requested them to replace the said mobile phone, but that also served no purpose. All this amounts to deficiency in service

cc no.242 of 2019

 

and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and he has prayed for imparting justice. Through affidavit Ex C-1, complainant has tried to reiterate his grievance and has made request for refund of cost price of mobile paid by him.

 11                                  In the light of above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not acceding to the request of complainant.  Before sending the mobile to complainant, OPs should have checked the product and it was required to be as per order placed by him. But OPs did not take care in sending the mobile sought by complainant. Further on return request raised by complainant, OPs received the said mobile, but did not issue any receipt for accepting the same. Through e-mail dated 25.08.2019 Ex C-12, they apologized for not sending the mobile as per order placed by complainant and reject the request of complainant for return of said mobile, but on the other hand complainant had already returned the said mobile to courier partner of OPs on 6.08.2019. Even request made by complainant through legal notice issued by him to

cc no.242 of 2019

OPs to exchange the wrong product sent by them to him and to           send the mobile phone as per order placed by him, remained unfruitful. OPs did not bother to redress his grievance and  failed to delivered the mobile handset as per order placed by complainant. Had OPs paid sufficient attention to the problem of complainant and had they initiated appropriate steps to provide effective services upto the satisfaction of complainant by replacing the said mobile with the mobile as per order placed by him, case of complainant would have been different. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed.  OPs are directed to refund the cost price of Rs.6,999/- paid by him to OPs through net banking on 27.07.2019 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protect Act. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to complainant as consolidated compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made

 

cc no.242 of 2019

within prescribed period. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 04.03.2020

                                      (Param Pal Kaur)             (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                           Member                     President