Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/766/2017

Isha Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paytm - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

23 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	766 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	04.10.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	23.08.2018

 

 

 

 

Isha Singla, House No.1021, Sector 24-B, Chandigarh.  

 

             ……..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Paytm, B-121, Sector 5, Noida 201301, through its Managing Director.

 

2]  Orbit Infosys, 4/24, Sukhdia Shopping Center, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan through its authorised signatory.

 

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

            SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER

 

For complainant :- Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for the complainant.

 

For OP(s)       :- Sh.Prantap Sharma, Adv. for OP No.1.

                   Sh.Gaurav Tripathi,Adv. for OP No.2

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

         The case of the complainant, in brief is that, she came across the site of Opposite Party No.1 where the MRP of Nayasa Polypropylene fridge bottle was mentioned as Rs.199/- and a discount of 76% was offered on it, as such, the price of bottle being offered was Rs.48/- and the shipping charges were Rs.69/- (Ann.C-1).  The complainant purchased the said bottle and paid Rs.117/- online and it was delivered to her by Opposite Party No.2 (Ann.C-2).  It is stated that the complainant was shocked to notice the MRP sticker pasted on the said bottle mentioning its price to be Rs.69/- only with packing date as April, 2012 (Ann.C-3).  The complainant raised the matter with Opposite Party No.1 (Ann.C-4), whereupon the Opposite Party No.1 on 20.6.2017 acknowledged that the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.31/- as 76% discount on Rs.69/- and offered to refund the same to her (Ann.C-5).  

         It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 increased the MRP of the product on its own and then allured the customers with 76% discount but actually in the deceitful way took a price much more than the MRP.  It is also submitted that the above act & conduct of the OPs amounts to their indulgence into unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party NO.1 has filed reply stating that OP No.1 is an online market place and acts as a platform for different sellers to sell their product and for different buyers to access and purchase amongst variety of goods offered by various sellers, subject to terms & conditions as enumerated on the website.  It is stated that the listing of product, its price, its image, discount, MRP etc. activities are being done by Merchant/OP No.2 for his product on the market place platform and not by Opposite Party NO.1/Paytm, nor does Paytm sell any product and actual contract for sale-purchase also happens directly between buyer (complainant) and seller (OP No.2).  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

         The Opposite Party No.2 has also filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that Opposite Party No.2 due to inadvertent typing mistake while punching the price, wrongly entered the MRP of the product in question as Rs.199/- instead of Rs.69/-, whereas the offer price has rightly been displayed as Rs.48/- and in the column of Shipping Price, the MRP of product of Rs.69/- got mentioned.  It is also stated that Opposite Party No.2 conceded about the mistake and tendered apology to the complainant at the very outset. It is also stated that there is no fault of Opposite Party No.1 in the whole incident. 

 

3]       Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the assertions made in the complaint.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       As per Section 2(c)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint is maintainable if a a trader or service provider, as the case may be,  has charged for the goods or for the service mentioned in the com­plaint a price in excess of the price –

(a) fixed by or under any law for the time being in force

(b)  displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods ;

(c)  displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being in force;

(d)  agreed between the parties;

 

         The Orbit Infosys/OP No.2 with an intent to have unlawful gain, displayed a set of Nayasa PolyPropylene Fridge Bottle, for Rs.199/- on website of Paytm/OP No.1. The complainant allured by the discount offer of discount of 76% on Rs.199/- ordered the supply of said product and paid Rs.117/- which include Rs.48/- as value of the product after discount plus Rs.69/- as shipping charges. The complainant, however, on receipt of the goods, later found a pasted label on the bottle in which the MRP of the product was mentioned as Rs.69/- inclusive of all taxes (Ann.C-3). 

 

7]       The Opposite Party No.2 in its written reply filed in this complaint admitted its fault in coating a wrong price i.e. MRP as Rs.199/- instead of Rs.69/-.

 

8]       From the careful consideration of the evidence on record and pleadings in this matter, the mistake on the part of Opposite Party No.2 in quoting MRP as Rs.199/- of the product instead of its actual value of Rs.69/- does not seem to be bona-fide, but intentional just to deceive the customers.  The conduct of Opposite Party No.2 amounts to unfair trade practice on its part, which require sever reprimand.

9]       In view of the above facts, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Party NO.2 with direction to pay a compensatory cost of Rs.25,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Party No.2 shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above relief.

 

10]      The complaint qua Opposite Party No.1/Paytm stands dismissed as no case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out against it. 

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced

23^rd August, 2018                                                           Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER