DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 118 of 18.3.2016
Decided on: 15.11.2017
Arun Bansal S/o Suresh Bansal R/o 44-D, Street No.4, Partap Nagar, Patiala (97800-19046).
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Balaji Enterprises, A Wing-501, Building No.2, Randhir Vihar Co-operative Housing Society, CTS No.187, Phandup West, Mumbai through its Prop./partner.
2. The Managing Director/CEO, Paytm Headquarters, B-121, Sector 5, Noida-201 301 India.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Arun Bansal, complainant in person.
Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.
Sh.Jaspreet Singh, Advocate,counsel for Op no.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
- The complainant placed an order for On-line purchase of a talking tom toy with OP no.2 vide order No.1552371775 dated 22.2.2016, which showed the MRP of the product as Rs.999/- and after discount and cash-back it will cost Rs.235/- to the complainant. After a few days when the complainant received the product he was shocked to see that the MRP of the product was Rs.193/- and not Rs.999/. The OP no.1 had intentionally concealed the MRP with black marker. The complainant also received the invoice of the product from Op no.1, having number 54351/000000001391, dated 23.2.2016 9:54 hrs, wherein the price of the toy was mentioned as Rs.293/-,Rs.15/- shipping charges, thus the total price of the product amounted to Rs.308/-.Thus the OP charged Rs.42/- excess from the actual MRP. Moreover, as per the indication shown on the product online, it sold near about 934 products which means that the seller is duping customer by selling morethan the M.R.P. On 29.2.2016, the complainant got sent a legal notice to the OPs but to no use. The complainant underwent a lot of mental agony, harassment as well as suffered monetary loss at the hands of the OPs. Ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
- On being put to notice, Op no.1 did not receive the same despite sending it time and again and ultimately OP no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte. Whereas OP no.2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. The preliminary objection taken by Op no.2 is that it is neither the seller nor offers to sell any product and it merely provides a technology platform (an online market place) where independent third party-sellers can list their products for sale. The sellers themselves ( and not paytm) are responsible for the sale of their products on the website. OP no.2 is only a facilitator and thus it does not have any privity of contract with the complainant and the complainant has wrongly impleaded OP no.2 as a party to the present complaint. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA his affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
The ld.counsel for Op no.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.M.Sivakumar, authorized representative of OP alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the complainant, the ld.counsel for OP no.2 and have algo gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the document showing the price of the product as Rs.999/- which after a discount of 66% amounted to Rs.343/-.Ex.C2 is the copy of the ‘order history’ wherein the price of the product is mentioned as Rs.293/-+15(shiiping charges) =Rs.308/-. In addition, the customer would get Rs.73/- for promo code TG25 and the same was successfully added in the complainant paytm wallet, which shows that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.235/- for the product. On receiving the product, the complainant was shocked to see that the MRP of the product was Rs.193/- and not Rs.999/- which the OP had concealed with Black Marker. However, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.235/- for the product instead of Rs.193/-Thus, the OP charged Rs.42/- in excess from the actual MRP. Whereas the plea taken by Op no.2 is that it is merely a technology platform where the independent third party-sellers list their products for sale. It is just a facilitator and does not have any privity of contract with the complainant. The actual contract of sale is between the merchant and the purchaser. After going through the evidence on record as well as hearing the complainant and OP no.2, we come to the conclusion that OP no.2 works through Op no.1 and therefore, both the OPs should be jointly liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by charging Rs.42/- more than the M.R.P of the product in question.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.42/- to the complainant. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:15.11.2017.
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
