Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/97/2023

Jatin Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Inditex Trent Retail India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Keerti Sandhu, Jatin Bansal & Sahil Sharma Adv.

14 May 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	97 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	05.09.2023
Date of Decision	:	14.05.2024

 

Jatin Bansal S/o Krishan Kumar, R/o House No.320A, Sector-9D, Chandigarh

…..Complainant.

VERSUS

1. Inditex Trent Retail India Pvt. Ltd., 8^th Floor, Ambience Corporate Tower-II, Plot No.3, Unit No.1 (Office 1), Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 India, through its Authorised Signatory.
2. Delhivery Limited, N24-N34, S24-S34, Air Cargo Logistics Centre-II, Opposite Gate 6 Cargo Terminal, IGI Airport, New Delhi DL 110037, India, through its Authorised Signatory.
3. Deepti Anurag, Director, Inditex Trent Retail India Pvt. Ltd., 8^th Floor, Ambience Corporate Tower-II, Plot No.3, Unit No.1 (Office 1), Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 India.
4. Venkatesalu Palaniswamy, Director, Inditex Trent Retail India Pvt. Ltd., 8^th Floor, Ambience Corporate Tower-II, Plot No.3, Unit No.1 (Office 1), Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 India.
5. Noel Naval Tata, Director, Inditex Trent Retail India Pvt. Ltd., 8^th Floor, Ambience Corporate Tower-II, Plot No.3, Unit No.1 (Office 1), Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 India.
6. Ashis Kumar Dash, Director, Inditex Trent Retail India Pvt. Ltd., 8^th Floor, Ambience Corporate Tower-II, Plot No.3, Unit No.1 (Office 1), Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 India.
7. Kapil Bharati, Director, Delhivery Limited, N24-N34, S-24-S34, Air Cargo Logistics Centre-II, Opposite Gate 6 Cargo Terminal, IGI Airport, New Delhi DL 110037 India.
8. Sahil Barua, Director, Delhivery Limited, N24-N34, S-24-S34, Air Cargo Logistics Centre-II, Opposite Gate 6 Cargo Terminal, IGI Airport, New Delhi DL 110037 India.

…..Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

ARGUED BY:

Sh. Harshit Kakani, Advocate proxy for Ms. Keerti Sandhu., Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Abhijit Singh Rawaley, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.2, 7 & 8.

Complaint dismissed against Opposite Parties No.1, 3, 4, 5 & 6.

 

PER RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

ORDER

 

 

The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased certain items i.e. clothes, shoes, perfume etc. etc. from Opposite Party No.1 vide two orders bearing No.52649423299 and order No.52704624093, total costing Rs.19,550/- which were delivered on 05.01.2023 and 18.01.2023 respectively. On opening the said orders, it was found that some of the items were of poor quality. Being dissatisfied, the complainant ordered return of those defective articles. It is his case that Opposite Party No.2, being the delivery agent of Opposite Party No.1, took those articles back and did not deliver the same to Opposite Party No.1. It is further his case that while purchasing those articles through e-commerce portal of Opposite Party No.1, a sum of Rs.200/- was charged by Opposite Party No.1 as delivery charges to be paid to its delivery agent Opposite Party No.2. It is further averred that on account of deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.2, Opposite Party No.1 did not refund the money. It is further his allegation that both the Opposite Parties are hand in gloves with each other and they fraudulently accepted the return request and picked up the products from the complainant but refused to refund the amount. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties, the complainant is seeking setting aside of unfair clauses in the contract Exhibit C-14, refund of amount of Rs.19,550/- alongwith delivery charges of Rs.580/- and return charges of Rs.200/- alongwith interest. Besides, he is also claiming compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs for mental harassment and Rs.75,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.  It may be stated here that during the pendency of the complaint, on 30.10.2023, counsel for the complainant withdrew the complaint against Opposite Parties No.1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 by moving separate application in this regard. Accordingly, this Commission dismissed the complaint as withdrawn against these Opposite Parties. However, though the complaint was withdrawn, but no reason was assigned for such withdrawal.
3. Opposite Parties No.2, 7 & 8 i.e. Delhivery Limited contested the allegations made in the complaint by filing their reply wherein it has been pleaded that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the value of the goods purchased by the complainant is Rs.20,330/-: that Opposite Parties No.2, 7 & 8  have been implicated by the complainant only to extract illegal money: that Opposite Parties No.2, 7 & 8  being engaged in the business of providing courier service to its customer on principal-to-principal basis only and conducts shipment in the intact and sealed condition as received from person or entity booking for shipment. It is further pleaded that Opposite Parties No.2, 7 & 8 are required to verify the contents, quality or quantity of items to be delivered or open the package and verify whatsoever. Alleging no deficiency or unfair trade practice on their part, these Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder wherein he repudiated the pleadings made in the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their case.
6. Before considering the merits of the case, we would like to first decide the preliminary objections with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction as raised by the Opposite Parties No.2, 7 and 8.  It may be stated here that the provisions of Section 47 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the Act) speaks about two modes of jurisdiction by the State Commission on the basis of pecuniary limits i.e. first on the total value of the goods or services paid as consideration from Rs.50 lacs to Rs.2 crores and secondly where complaints pertain to unfair contracts, then it will be up-to ten crore rupees. It is necessary to reproduce relevant provisions of Section 47 of CPA 2019 as under:-

“………47. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—

 

1. to entertain—

 

1. complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;
2. complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees;
3. xxxxx…..….”

 

Here is the case where jurisdiction has been exercised by pleading unfair contract. A bare perusal of Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) provides that the State Commission shall also have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees. Further, the legal term “unfair contract” has been defined under Section 2 (46) of CPA 2019 as under:-

 

(46) "unfair contract" means a contract between a manufacturer or trader or service provider on one hand, and a consumer on the other, having such terms which cause significant change in the rights of such consumer, including the following, namely:—

(i) requiring manifestly excessive security deposits to be given by a consumer for the performance of contractual obligations; or

(ii) imposing any penalty on the consumer, for the breach of contract thereof which is wholly disproportionate to the loss occurred due to such breach to the other party to the contract; or

(iii) refusing to accept early repayment of debts on payment of applicable penalty; or

(iv) entitling a party to the contract to terminate such contract unilaterally, without reasonable cause; or

(v) permitting or has the effect of permitting one party to assign the contract to the detriment of the other party who is a consumer, without his consent; or

(vi) imposing on the consumer any unreasonable charge, obligation or condition which puts such consumer to disadvantage….”

 

7.           In the present case, the complainant has specifically challenged certain clauses of the contract, Exhibit C-14. Thus, we are of the view that the lis fully falls within the ambit of provisions of Section 2 (46) and Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) ibid and the complainant has rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission. Consequently, objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction stands rejected.
8.      During the course of arguments, Counsel for the complainant fairly conceded that the complainant has already been refunded the amount of Rs.20,000/- by Opposite Party No.1 and his grievance is only with regard to non-returning of the items received from the complainant to Opposite Party No.1, which is an unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.2. He has further argued that Opposite Party No.2 is the agent of Opposite Party No.1 and for delivery of articles, Opposite Party No.1 had charged a sum of Rs.290/- from the complainant to be paid to Opposite Party No.2. On 20.03.2024, counsel for the complainant placed on record copy of tax invoice dated 13.01.2023 as Exhibit C-X and C-Y to establish that an amount of Rs.290/- was charged by Opposite Parties No.1, 3 4, 5 & 6 as shipping and handling charges. Therefore, for this deficiency, Opposite Party No.2 is liable to compensate the complainant.
9.       On the other hand, counsel for Opposite Parties No.2, 7 & 8 strenuously made two fold submissions, firstly that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Opposite Parties No.2, 7 & 8 and secondly, once the complainant had settled the dispute with Opposite Party No.1 being the principal entity and has received the amount from it, therefore, he has no claim left qua refund or compensation against Opposite Parties No.2, 7 & 8, who have a binding contract on principal-to-principal basis with Opposite Party No.1. He has further argued that Opposite Parties No.2, 7 & 8 never received any amount from the complainant as delivery charges and in case any delivery charges have been paid to it, it is inter se between the opposite parties.
10.         After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and going through the material available on record and the written arguments very carefully, we are of the concerted view that once the complainant had received the amount from Opposite Party No.1 and withdrew the present complaint and allegations made therein against Opposite Parties No.1, 3 4, 5 & 6, he cannot raise any claim against remaining Opposite Parties No.2, 7 & 8 because of the simple reason that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Opposite Parties No.2, 7 & 8. The complainant has fully been compensated in terms of refund by Opposite Parties No.1, 3, 4, 5 & 6. Had there been any grievance left with regard to the non-receipt of articles by Opposite Parties No.1, 3 4, 5 & 6., it was for Opposite Parties No.1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 to raise this issue with Opposite Parties No.2, 7 & 8 as both these Opposite Parties are working on principal-to-principal basis. It is apposite to mention here that nowhere in the complaint or during its pendency or till the filing of written arguments, the factum of receipt of the amount by the complainant from Opposite Parties No.1, 3 4, 5 & 6 has been disclosed. It was only during the course of arguments that the counsel for the complainant, when an argument was advanced by the counsel for the contesting Opposite Parties that amount has been refunded to the complainant by Opposite Parties No.1, 3 4, 5 & 6, fairly conceded that the complainant has received the refund. Therefore, in view of above, this Commission is of the opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to make out any claim against Opposite Parties No.2, 7 & 8 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as such.

11.  For the reasons, recorded above, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
12. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
13. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge forthwith.
14. File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

 

Pronounced

14.05.2024

 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

 MEMBER

Ad/-