Delhi

North East

CC/44/2020

PANKAJ AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

JIOMART - Opp.Party(s)

19 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 44/2020

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

Shri Pankaj Aggarwal

R/o: C-41/Z-2, Dilshad Garden

Delhi-110095                                                                                                Complainant

	Versus

Jio Mart

Reliance Retails Ltd.

Aero Business Tower, First Floor

Chander Nagar, Surya Nagar

Ghaziabad-201011                                                                          Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:                ORDER RESERVED ON:                          DATE OF ORDER:

25.09.2020 31.03.2022 19.04.2022

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

             The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had placed an order for house hold grocery on Jio Mart Website on 03.09.2020 and the order was delivered to the Complainant on 04.09.2020. The Complainant had made the online payment for purchasing the said grocery items. The purchased items were delivered in the one box and one packet. When Complainant opened the box and packet, it was found by the Complainant that the one item i.e. Rin Detergent weight 4 KG packet was not in the box. Complainant immediately made a complaint to Opposite Party through email.
2. The Complainant has prayed for issuing directions to Opposite Party the price of the said product alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs. 20,000/- for delay/negligence and deficiency in service. He has also claimed Rs. 5,000/- compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and loss of work. It is also prayed by the Complainant to award Rs. 5,000/- on account of litigation charges.
3. Complainant has attached copy of bill, copy of emails, photo of box and copy of legal notice dated 09.09.2020.

Case of Opposite Party

4. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. It has raised the preliminary objection that the Complainant had made an order through Jio Mart App on 03.09.2020 which was executed by Opposite Party on 04.09.2020. Opposite Party submitted that the Opposite Party gives facility to its customers to book order of various products online and can also check its real time delivery status. Further, it was submitted by the Opposite Party that “one time password” (OTP) facility is given to customers to verify the delivery. Customer is given the option to provide the said OTP to the delivery person (called rider) only after receipt of all orders. Opposite party stated that in case of non-receipt of delivery of the ordered products the customer has the option to not to take the delivery. Further, Opposite Party stated that the Opposite Party tried to contact the Complainant as a goodwill gesture and was ready to deliver the left out product but somehow it could not happen.It is prayed by the Opposite Party that complaint of the Complainant be dismissed.
5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party wherein he has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party and he has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.
5. Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. He has relied upon the documents i.e. copy of bill, copy of emails, photo of box and copy of legal notice dated 09.09.2020

Evidence of the Opposite Party

7. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Pankaj Kushwaha, Store Manager, Reliance Retail Ltd. (Deponent Company) at Aero Business (1^st Floor), Chander Nagar, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad. In his affidavit he has supported the case of Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement. Opposite Party submitted that the Opposite Party gives facility to its customers to book order of various products online and can also check its real time delivery status. Further, it was submitted by the Opposite Party that “one time password” (OTP) facility is given to customers to verify the delivery. Customer is given the option to provide the said OTP to the delivery person (called rider) only after receipt of all orders. Opposite party stated that in case of non-receipt of delivery of the ordered products the customer has the option to not to take the delivery.

Arguments and Conclusions

8.        We have heard the Complainant and Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file it was submitted by the Complainant that he placed online order with the Opposite Party for purchasing the grocery items and for the same he made online payment to the Opposite Party. It is the case of the Complainant that when he received the delivery of the ordered grocery items one 4 kg Rin detergent was not delivered to him. The case of the Opposite Party is that it had delivered all the articles to the Complainant. It was submitted by the Opposite Party that before delivery of the order, one time password (OTP) is sent to the buyer. Before, sharing the said OTP with the delivery boy the customer can check the delivered articles and the customer has option not to accept the delivery if the same is not as per his order or something is missing. It was argued that the present case OTP was sent to the Complainant and Complainant shared the OTP with the delivery boy and received the parcel. It was argued that in case all the ordered good were not therein parcel/packet. The Complainant had the option not to accept the delivery. But in the present case the Complainant had shared the OTP and received the delivery which means that articles which were delivered to the Complainant were complete.

9.        As discussed above the Opposite Party stated in its written statement that Opposite Party gives facility to check its real time delivery status. Customer is given the option to provide the said OTP to the delivery person (called rider) only after receipt of all orders. Opposite party stated in its written statement that in case of non-receipt of delivery of the ordered products the customer has the option to not to take the delivery. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party. It is important to note that the Complainant has merely denied this assertion of the Opposite Party. He has not specifically denied that he was given option not to accept delivery if all the ordered goods were not supplied. Further, it is important to note that the Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit. The perusal of its affidavit filed in his evidence shows that the Complainant has not denied this averment of the Opposite Party that the Complainant had the option not to accept the delivery if the delivery was not as per his order.Therefore, under these circumstances it has to be believed that the Complainant had the option not to share the OTP with the delivery boy and had option not to accept the delivery if the ordered items were not complete.

10.      In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant had failed to prove his case and the complaint is accordingly dismissed.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)                                              (Surinder Kumar Sharma)      

       (Member)                                                                (President)