Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 148.
Instituted on : 01.03.2021.
Decided on : 08.08.2022.
Varun Batra, age-33 yrs. S/o Sh. Satish Batra R/o 889/25, Opp. ITI, Chinyot Colony, Rohtak, Haryana, Mob.9996011751.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Paytm, B-121, Sector-5, Noida-201301, Uttar Pardesh.
- Padmawati Enterprises, Plot No. D-40, Meera Enclave, Saffipur, Ranholla New Delhi, Delhi-110041
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
SH.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Vinay Khatri, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No. 2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he placed an order for Addidas Shoes through Paytm/opposite party no.1 on 27.12.2020 and paid Rs.1499/- for the same. The said product was eligible for free return within 7 days of delivery with full refund and the same was being invoiced by Padmavati Enterprises on dated 28.12.2020 under the order ID12542796583. Complainant received the product on 30.12.2020 in defective/damaged condition, which seems duplicate too. On the same day, complainant had made a return request, which was duly accepted by opposite party no. 1 as per the policy. Complainant requested opposite party no. 1 through mobile app on 02.01.2021 and 04.01.2021 to know the status of return request. On 04.01.2021, the opposite party no. 1 had replied the complainant that they were already working to resolve the case but it was not processed further. Complainant made so many complaints to the opposite party no. 1 on dated 06.01.2021, 12.01.2021, 16.01.2021, 18.01.2021 and 26.01.2021 for picking up the product but the opposite party no. 1 on 02.02.2021 had refused to return the product without giving any reason. On 06.02.2021, complainant had reported this issue to Customer Care Executive of opposite party no. 1 and sent all requisite documents to opposite party no. 1 through mail and also sent two reminders on dated 08.02.2021 & 09.02.2021 but received no response. The act of opposite parties of sending the defective product and not to replace the same is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to return the product(take the product back) and to pay a sum of Rs.1499/-, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.1200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that opposite party No.1 is only hosts and provides access to an online marketplace platform which facilitates the Merchant or the sellers, after executing a Marketplace Agreement to display/list their goods that are purchased by the buyers after accepting the terms and conditions displayed on the website and at the price determined and displayed by the Merchant or the seller. It is further submitted that the return request generated by the complainant on 30.12.2020 and in order to process the return request of the complainant, the opposite party no. 1 vide email dated 04.01.2021 intimated the complainant that images of the packaging were required alongwith images of the product, however for reasons best known to the complainant, no reply was received to the same from the complainant. Thereafter on 06.01.2021 and 07.01.2021 reminder emails were sent to complainant by opposite party no. 1 but no response received by the complainant. At last on 11.01.2021, the return request of complainant got auto-closed by the system itself with comments “Details not shared by customer within timeline.” It is also submitted by the complainant that upon receiving the receipt of the present complaint, the opposite party no. 1 had approached the seller i.e. opposite party no. 2 who agreed to take the shoes back from the complainant sold through the website of the opposite party no. 1 but the complainant refused to return the shoes back. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Notice issued to the opposite party No. 2 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. As such opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.09.2021 of this Commission.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex. CW-1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and has closed his evidence on 23.11.2021. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has failed to produce his evidence and the same was closed by court order on 05.04.2022. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has also filed written submissions at the time of arguments, which is placed on record as ‘Annexure-JN-A’.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, grievance of the complainant is that he purchased a pair of shoes online on dated 28.12.2020 vide bill Ex.C2 from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.1499/- but the same were defective/damaged condition. As per the 7 days return policy of opposite party, the complainant requested the opposite party No.1 on dated 30.12.2020 to take back the shoes and to refund the price. But as per the status of return request Ex.C3, the opposite party had cancelled the return request. As per email dated 06.02.2020 placed on record as Ex.C7 opposite party no.1 sought some pictures of brand name & product from the complainant and the same were duly enclosed by the complainant with his mail dated 06.02.2020 Ex.C7. But despite that neither the product was picked up nor the price was refunded by the opposite party No.1. At the time of arguments, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has stated that they have sent so many emails to the complainant as shown in Annexure R-2 but as per the complainant, no such mail has been received by the complainant. It is further argued that the product has been sold to the complainant by Parmavati Enterprises i.e. opposite party no.2 and as such opposite party No.2 is bound to repay or replace the shoes as per terms and condition.
6. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per the documents placed on record, complainant had made a return request within time as per the 7 days return policy of the opposite party No.1. But the same was cancelled by the opposite party no.1 on dated 02.02.2020 without any reason. Lateron opposite party no.1 vide its email dated 06.02.2020 and demanded some documents, which were duly sent/enclosed by the complainant with his mail of the same day. But despite that shoes have not been replaced or amount has not been refunded to the complainant. In fact it has been argued by the complainant that he made complaint to the respondent no.1 that he has received a defective article/shoes. But till date neither the shoes have been replaced by the respondent no.1 or 2, nor the amount has been refunded. Merely a submission has been made on behalf of respondent no.1 that the shoes have been supplied by respondent no.2 and he is bound to repay the amount or to replace the shoes to the complainant. But what action has been taken by the respondent no.1 against the respondent no.2 as per their policy/MOU. Respondent no.1 failed to place on record any document to prove that they have wrote any mail to the respondent no.2 that he should repay the amount to the complainant or the article should be replaced. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of both the opposite parties and both the parties are jointly & severally liable to refund the price of shoes alongwith compensation. However, law cited by ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 in FAO(OS)133/2019 and CM APPL.32954/2019(STAY) of Hon’
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 & 2 jointly and severally to pick up the pair of shoes in question from the complainant and to refund the price of shoes i.e. Rs.1499/-(Rupees one thousand four hundred and ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 28.12.2020 till its realization. Further opposite party no.1 is directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) and opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) respectively as compensation on account of deficiency in service including litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
08.08.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
