Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/428

Jawinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Unistore Limited - Opp.Party(s)

complaint in person

17 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:428 dated 17.09.2021.                                                         Date of decision: 17.08.2022.

 

Jaswinder Singh Bhatti, Advocate aged about 33 years son of Sh. Jagat Ram, Chamber No.100, Distt. Courts, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                        ..…Complainant 

•  

 

1. M/s. Tata Unistore Limited (Tata Cliq), having its Head Office at Ist Floor, Empire Plaza-2, Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg, Chandan Nagar, Vikhroli West, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400083, through its Manager/Managing Director/Authorized Person. 
2. M/s. Mirza International Ltd., CA/5, 36/37, Sector-59, Noida-201307, U.P. through its Manager/Managing Director/Authorized Person.
3. M/s. Ekart Logistics Brigade, having its Head Office at Manae Court, First Floor, No.111, Koramangala Industrial Layout, Bangalore-560095, Karnatka, through its Manager/Managing Director/Authorized person.                                                                       …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Jaswinder Singh Bhatti, Advocate in person.

For OP1 and OP2          :         Exparte.

For OP3                         :         Complaint against OP3 dismissed as withdraw                                            vide order dated 16.08.2022.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                 In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 04.04.2021, he placed an order of one pair of Red Tape shoes for Rs.1889/-. The order was placed through the website of OP1. OP3 delivered the shoes to him on 09.04.2021 with invoice No.A31909210405A112 dated 05.04.2021 issued by OP2. At the time of the delivery, the complainant tried to make the payment to the delivery boy using his Paytm application on his mobile No.98550-38002. However, due to some technical error, the amount could not be transferred through Paytm app to the authorized delivery boy i.e. OP3. As a result, the complainant made the payment in cash to the delivery boy namely Ravi Kumar and received the shoes from him. However, on 11.04.2021, an amount of Rs.1890/- was also credited in Paytm account of delivery boy Ravi Kumar connected with his mobile No.62831-36600. When the complainant came to know about this, he immediately contacted OP1 through its customer care. Accordingly, OP1 admitted the facts and assured the complainant that the amount of Rs.1890/- shall be reimbursed within three days. However, the payment was not received by the complainant. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 17.05.2021 upon the OPs but despite that the payment was not made. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to reimburse the amount of Rs.1890/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, OP1 and OP2 did not appear and were proceeded against exparte However, the complaint as against OP3 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.08.2022.

3.                In exparte evidence, the complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C19 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the complainant in person and have gone though the record.   

5.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that he placed an online order for purchase of a pair of shoes on e-commerce website of OP1 known as Tata Cliq. As per the order placed on the website of OP1 i.e. Tata Cliq, the cash was to be paid on delivery. The shoes were sold by OP2 I.e. Mirza International Ltd., Noida as is evident from the invoice Ex. C1. The shoes were to be delivery by OP3 which is a courier company as is referred to in the invoice Ex. C1 itself. As per the case of the complainant, 09.04.2021 when the delivery agent of OP3 came to deliver the shoes, the complainant tried to make the payment of Rs.1890/- to the delivery boy Ravi Kumar using his Paytm account. However, somehow, the payment could not be made through Paytm app from the mobile of the complainant. As a result, the complainant paid Rs.1890/- in cash to the delivery boy. However, later on, on 11.04.2021, the payment of Rs.1890/- was debited in the account of the complainant and credited in the account of the delivery man Ravi Kumar. In this manner, the complainant made the payment twice. All these facts have been controverted by the OPs who have not chosen to context the case. In these circumstances, OP1 and OP2 are liable to be held responsible for refunding the payment of Rs.1890/-. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if OP1 and OP2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1890/- to the complainant as the said amount was received extra by an agent/authorized representative of OP3.

6.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is exparte allowed as against OP1 and OP2 who are jointly and severally  directed to refund the amount of Rs.1890/- to the complainant along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

7.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Jaswinder Singh Vs M/s. Tata Unistore Limited                        CC/21/428 

Present:       Complainant Sh. Jaswinder Singh Bhatti, Advocate in person.

                   OP and OP2 exparte.

                   Complaint against OP3 dismissed as withdraw vide order dated                             16.08.2022.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is exparte allowed as against OP1 and OP2 who are jointly and severally  directed to refund the amount of Rs.1890/- to the complainant along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.