Orissa

Cuttak

CC/125/2021

Bijaya Kumar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Moglix - Opp.Party(s)

Self

01 Oct 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.125/2021

Bijaya Kumar Das,

At-Kushapangi,PO-Gurudijhatia(Bali),

Grama-Oranda,Cuttack,

Odisha-754029                                                                                       ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1. Managing Director,Moglix,

D-188, D-Block,

Sector-10,Noida,Uttar Pradesh

Pin-201301.

 

2. The Manager,Ganapati Enterprises,

16-B/15,Pyarelal Road,

Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Central Delhi,

Delhi-110005.                                                                                       ..Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    18.08.2021

Date of Order:   01.10.2022

 

For the complainant       :            Self.

For the O.P No.1.             :            Mr. N.K Dash,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2              :            None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.             

                                                               

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a water pump on 9.3.21 for a price of Rs.6399/- through “Moglix”  e.commerce website having reference no.MSNPKEP0GQ9G.  The product was received by the complainant on 14.7.21 after paying an additional charge of Rs.300/-.  The complainant found that neither the exterior nor the interior parts of the product bear any necessary instructions like batch no., manufacturing date, name of the manufacturer bar code and other such particulars.  The complainant apprehended that the said product was a fake one for which he asked the company through mail, to replace it.  On 22.3.21 he had approached the Consumer Counselling Centre and that day a notice was sent from the counselling centre to the said company fixing 7.4.21 as the date for mediation.  When the O.P company had not cooperated in refunding the product which they had initially agreed before the mediation, the complainant had filed this case seeking cost of the product from the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.6399/-, delivery charges of Rs.200/- alongwith a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards his mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation cost. 

The complainant has filed copies of several documents to prove his case.

2.     Out of the two O.Ps, O.P No.2 having not contested this case is set exparte vide order dt.1.6.22.  However, O.P No.1 has contested this case and has filed his written version.  As per the written version of O.P No.1, the complainant is not entitled to the claims as made, he has not approached with clean hands, he had suppressed material facts and thus the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  The O.P No.1 admits about the complainant purchasing Jindal 1HP 4’ water-filled submersible pump with control panel on 9.3.21 by paying Rs.6399/- which was received by him on 14.3.21.  It is alleged by the O.P no.1 that the complainant is not ready to return the product and that O.P no.1 being one e.commerce market place is in no way responsible for the product purchased by the complainant and thus, the case is bad for mis-joinder of parties.  Thus, according to O.P No.1, there was no deficiency in service on his part and that this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction. 

O.P No.1 alongwith his written version has filed certain copies of documents including the terms of use of the product.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition with contents of the written version of the contesting O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether the case is bad for mis-joinder of parties ?

            iii.        Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Issues no.i & ii.

            Issues no.i & ii  are taken up together first for consideration here in this case. 

            Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a submersible water pump of Jindal Company by paying a sum of Rs.6399/- and further he had paid an amount of Rs.300/- in order to get the said pump set.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant being dissatisfied and apprehending the product to be a fake one wanted that the O.Ps would refund him.  O.Ps had attended the mediation at the Counselling Centre and had agreed for refund.  At the mediation centre, the complainant wanted a deposit of atleast 50% of the value to which the O.Ps disagreed and rather, they wanted to take back the product first.  In this scenario, when the case is filed by the complainant, it cannot be said that the same is not maintainable.  O.P No.1 through his written version has urged that he being an e.commerce entity/market place, is in no way liable but such plea as taken by O.P no.1 in order to escape from the liability here in this case, does not hold good since because it is the duty of the e.commerce entity to ensure that genuine product is delivered and to provide and cooperate with the purchaser/complainant, and to provide the actual and correct address of the seller.  When the same was not scrupulously done here in this case, it can never be said that the case is bad for mis-joinder of parties since because the complainant had added O.P No.1(e.commerce flatform) as a party to this case.  Thus these two issues go in favour of the complainant. 

Issue no.iii.

            From the above discussions, when the O.Ps had not refunded the product of the complainant which was not a genuine one, there was indeed deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps of this case.  Accordingly, this issue is answered against the O.Ps.

Issue no.iv.

            It is noticed that the complainant is ofcourse entitled to the reliefs as claimed.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against O.P No.1 and exparte against O.P no.2 and both the opposite parties to this case are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to refund the complainant a sum of  Rs.6399/- alongwith interest there on @ 9% per annum with effect from 9.3.21 till the total amount is quantified and to take back the product as supplied by them to the complainant.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation cost.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 1^st  day of   October,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.        

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                              Member