DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  225

                                                Instituted on:    22.05.2017

                                                Decided on:       13.09.2017

Charanjit Sachdeva aged about 41 years son of Bhagwan Dass, resident of Sachdeva Niwas, SCF 14, New Grain Market, Ward No.11, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Paytm, B-121, Sector 5, Noida 201301 (UP) through its Managing Director.

2.             Blue Dart Express, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri East, Mumbai through its authorised signatory.

3.             Blue Dart Express, Opposite HDFC Bank, Hotel Mayur, Friends Colony, Opposite Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Authorised signatory.

4.             A1 Gadget Store, P.No.34, D.P. Cooperative Society, Opposite Tennis Court, Penderghast Road, Sindhi Colony, Secunderabad, Hyderabad through its Authorised signatory.  

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Ritesh Jindal, Advocate.

For OP No.2&3         :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate.

For OP No.4             :       Shri Rajan Kapil, Advocate.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Charanjit Sachdeva, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant placed an order of Apple iphone 7 (128 GB –Jet Black) with the OP number 1 on 15.03.2017 vide order number 2914718082 under the offer of the OP number 1 through paytm under the account of Kanishik Sachdeva, who is the son of the complainant.  It is further averred that the cost of the mobile set in question was Rs.70,000/- and there was a discount on the same, as such, the complainant was to pay an amount of Rs.62,400/- along with other charges and in this way the complainant paid an amount of Rs.62,599/- to Ops.  The grievance of the complainant is that on 18.3.2017 the employee of the complainant namely Rinkle received the parcel containing the mobile set in question, but when the complainant opened the box, he was shocked to see that the OPs delivered apple iphone 7 128 GB of Gold colour and the IMEI number of the said mobile was also different from the bill. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant immediately lodged the complaint with the OP number 1 on 18.3.2017, which was duly received. It is further averred that though the Ops assured that the complaint will be resolved, but nothing happened despite the fact that the complainant approached the Ops so many times.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to deliver the apple iphone 7 (128 GB-Jet Black) to the complainant or to refund its price i.e. Rs.62,599/- along with interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by Op number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the OP number 1 is the owner of website Paytm, that the complainant has alleged that he vide order ID 2914718082 placed an order for purchase of one apple iphone 7 (128GB-Jet Black) of Rs.62,599/- on 15.3.2017, but the said product was delivered by OP number 1 by courier through OP number 2 and 3, that the OP number 1 is working as an intermediary and the OP number 1 cannot be held liable for the acts of third party. On merits, it is stated that OP number 4 is an independent seller and the OP number 1 is an online market place where sellers like OP number 4 register themselves and display their products for independent third party buyers.  It is admitted that the complainant placed an order for purchase of one apple iphone 7 for Rs.62,599/- on 15.3.2017. It is stated that it is OP number 4, who is only responsible for supply of the different item.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 2 and 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that they have entered into an agreement with OP number 1 to carry shipments from the point of origin to the destination as specified.  All shipments are picked up intact/sealed condition and delivered to the consignee. It is stated that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious one and that the complaint is not maintainable against OP number 2 and 3 as the parcel had been booked by OP number 1 and the same has been delivered to the complainant on 18.3.2017 in sealed condition.

4.             In reply filed by Op number 4, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had placed the order of the mobile set in question on 15.3.2017 in the name of Kanishk and that the complainant has got no cause of action file the present complaint. It has been denied that the Op number 4 delivered the apple iphone 7 of gold colour instead of Jet Black. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 copies of documents and emails and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/5 documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 and 3 has produced Ex.OP2&3/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.OP4/1 affidavit and closed evidence.  

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, written reply and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that though the complainant placed the order of Apple iPhone 7 (128 GB- Jet black) with the OP number 1  on 15.03.2017 vide order number 2914718082 for Rs.62,599/- with the OP number 1 and paid the same amount, but the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs when delivered the mobile set in question it was of gold colour against Jet Black.  It is further contended that the complainant sent so many mails immediately to the Ops for replacement of the iphone set, as is evident from the documents on record Ex.C-6.  Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 are the photographs of the parcel showing that the iphone supplied by Ops is of gold colour.  Though it has been stated by the OP number 4 that the mobile set in question was delivered to the complainant as ordered by him, but the case of the complainant is that the mobile set in question was wrongly delivered by the OPs of Gold colour instead of Jet black as ordered and is further evident from the copy of the invoice Ex.C-3, which clearly reveals that the complainant ordered (jet black).  To support such a contention, the complainant has also produced on record his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 as well as photographs Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8.  On the other hand, the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that the OPs number 1 and 4 actually supplied the Jet black mobile set to the complainant.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OP number 1 and 4 are directed to refund to the complainant the amount of the mobile set i.e. Rs.62,599/- after taking back the delivery of the gold iphone 7 along with all the accessories of the mobile set in question, as by supplying the wrong colour of the iphone set the sentiments of the complainant have been disturbed.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs number 1 and 4 and as such, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 1 and 4 to refund to the complainant the purchase price of the iphone 7 set i.e. Rs.62,599/- after taking back the iphone 7 Gold with all accessories in good working condition under proper receipt. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost.

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 13, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                  Member