Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/6/2020

Suraj Narayan Agarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director PAYTM - Opp.Party(s)

11 Feb 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-22-01-2020

Date of final hearing-11-02-2023

 Date of Order-11-02-2023

Case No. 06/2020

Suraj Narayan Prasad S/ o Rajendra Prasad Agarwal

R/o Govindpur, P.O and P.S Bokaro Thermal, Bokaro 829107

Vs.

Director PAYTM

Reg. Office One 97 Communication Limited

First Floor, Devika Tower, Nehru Place New Delhi

                            

Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

        Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

          

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

Judgment-

1. Complainant ‘s case in brief is that on 28.11.2019 he purchased full T-shirt from Paytm company but he received half T-shirt which was returned and again half T-shirt was delivered to him on 07.12.2019 hence he talked with the customer care of the company who was advised to re-order. Further case is that again half T-shirt was delivered causing harassment to the complainant hence he gave legal notice having no impact thereafter, this case has been filed with prayer to direct the O.P. to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation.
2. O.P. appeared and has filed W.S. mentioning therein that Paytm Mall & Bazaar is a platform for online marketing by difference sellers and this O.P. only is an intermediary between seller and buyer. Further reply is that this O.P. is not proper and necessary party in this case and seller of the goods is Aditya Birla Fashion Ltd. who has issued invoice and simply this O.P. has acted as intermediary. Further reply is that pick up of the said order was arranged by the seller but return was rejected on 23.12.2019 due to  pickup  cancelled by customer on attempt as per remarks of the courier hence it is prayed to dismiss the case.
3. Only point for consideration is that whether complainant is entitled to get any relief as claimed ?
4. On perusal of the annexure-2 (Sale invoice) it appears that present O.P. is not the seller of the item purchased by the complainant and seller of the item concerned has not been impleaded in this case as O.P. nor any relief has been sought against him. It is admitted fact that item was delivered to the complainant but it was not to his satisfaction.  As per O.P. third time complainant has not returned the T-shirt in spite of approach by the courier service provider. It is also apparent that the seller from whom item was purchased has not been made party in this case. It is very much clear that the T-shirt which delivered to the complainant has been kept by him and it has not been returned inspite of approach and attempt for it by the seller and the seller who is essential and necessary party has not been made party in this case. In the given fact we are of the view that complainant has not proved his case for grant of relief as prayed.
5. Accordingly this case is being dismissed on merit with cost.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

                                                                                               

(B.P.L Das)

Sr. Member

 

 

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

                                                Member