Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/521/2016

Simranjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paytm - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

19 May 2017

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	521 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	25.07.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	19.05.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Simranjeet Singh s/o Iqbal Singh, House NO.815, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

VERSUS

 

1]  Pay TM through its Managing Director, B-121, Sector 5, Noida 201301, India.

 

2]  Laptech Solutions Private Limited, through its Managing Director 31/35, GoldField Plaza, Pune, Sasoon Road, Pune 411001

 

2^nd Address:-

2408, East Street Kumar Palace, Shop No.1, 2, 3 Camp, Pune, Maharashtra 411001

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE: MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA  PRESIDING MEMBER

        SH.RAVINDER SINGH           MEMBER

 

 

Argued by :-

 

Complainant in person.

None for OPs NO.1 & 2.

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant purchased one Lenovo Laptop from Paytm on 12.6.2016. It is averred that complainant found a laptop of Lenovo Ideapad 500  and on Paytm its price was shown as Rs.71,990/- and this price had  discount of 17%, so the complainant purchased it through Paytm for Rs.59,985/-.  It is also averred that when the complainant received the said product, on its outside, the price was written as Rs.59,985/- and on opening the box, the complainant found a sticker pasted on the laptop showing maximum retail price as Rs.64,590/-. 

         It is stated that the complainant was shocked to see that although the maximum retail price was Rs.64,590/-, but on the website of Paytm, its price was mentioned as Rs.71,990/- and it was also mentioned that on Rs.71,990/-, the complainant would get 17% discount.  It is also stated that if the discount, which has been received by the complainant on the MRP of Rs.64,590/- is calculated, after considering the payment of Rs.59,985/-, it comes out to be Rs.4605/-, which means 7% discount only.  It is submitted that it is unlawful to show any price or figure above the maximum retail price on any product.  It is also submitted that the maximum retail price of the laptop in question was Rs.64,590/- but on the website its price was shown as Rs.71,990/- which amounts to false advertisement.  Alleging the above act of the OPs as illegal, hence the present 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 alleged order was placed by the complainant on 12.6.2016, the alleged product was listed by OP No.2 at a price of Rs.71,990/- and the complainant purchased the said product after the discount of 17% on the price of Rs.71,990/- and admittedly the invoice was generated by OP No.2 on 13.6.2016.  It is also stated that actually OP No.2 is liable for warranty, guarantee and for setting of price of its product. It is submitted that being an intermediary, the OP No.1 cannot be held liable for the acts and misdeed of OP No.2, who has allegedly displayed a price more than the actual MRP of the product on the online market place platform provided by OP No.1.  It is also submitted that after verifying the images, OP No.1 blocked the alleged product that was being sold by OP No.2 at a hiked MRP and also served a legal notice dated 14.9.2016 upon OP No.2 in this regard. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, OP 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 the complainant was sold the laptop in question at much below MRP after giving rebate of 17% on online purchasing.  It is stated that since there was change of MRP with change in dollars, but latest MRP could not be updated on the website of paytm inadvertently.  It is also stated that this mistake is not intentional or willful rather it was inadvertently and because of this bonafide mistake, the OP had to pay a penalty of Rs.74,985/- to the Paytm (Ann.OP-2/A).  It is also stated that the complainant did not brought this mistake to the notice of OP No.2, otherwise the legitimate amount would have been returned to the complainant.  It is submitted that the OP No.2 is ready and willing to pay Rs.7633/- as claimed by the complainant and annexed original draft thereof as Ann.OP-2/B.  It is also submitted that the said mistake was not intentional or willful, rather inadvertent.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

5]       The Opposite Party No.2 has stated that it has sold the laptop to the complainant at much below the MRP after giving rebate of 17% as promised.  It is stated that there was change of MRP because of change of exchange rate of dollars, but latest MRP could not be updated on the website of Paytm inadvertently.  There seems to be no intentional lapse on the part of Opposite Party No.2.

 

6]       The Opposite Party NO.2 honestly on 22.3.2017 has paid Rs.7633/- to the complainant vide cheque No.021777, as claimed by the complainant in the complaint.

 

7]       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, decided on 5.4.2007, has held that :-

 

“A negligence simpliciter would not be a misconduct.”

   

8]       An error of judgment, per se, is not a misconduct.

 

9]       The facts and circumstances of the present matter do not call for any punitive order against the OPs and as such, the complaint stands dispose of being infructuous.

    The copy of this order be forwarded to the parties and file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19^th May, 2017        

                                       Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER