Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/562/2020

M/s Celebrate Movies - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

16 Sep 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/562/2020
Date of Institution	:	01/12/2020
Date of Decision	:	16/09/2021

 

 

M/s Celebrate Movies, SCO No.33, First Floor, Sector
31-D, Chandigarh through its Proprietor Sh. Pankaj Chugh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s Myntra Designs Private Limited, AKR Tech Park, B Block, Krishna Reddy, Industrial Area, 7th Mile Kudlu Gate, Bangalore 560058 through its Managing Director.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Atul Sharma, Counsel for OP

 

Per Rajan Dewan, President

1.      The facts in brief are, complainant, who is running a proprietorship business to earn his livelihood, on 22.10.2020 purchased sports shoes from the OP and paid a sum of ₹1,299/- and the same was delivered to him on 26.10.2020.  However, he was shocked to see that the OP had delivered some other shoe than the one ordered. The complainant immediately brought the same to the notice of the OP. On 4.11.2020 complainant again lodged complaint with the OP after which OP sought certain information which was sent, but, still nothing was done. The complainant again sent messages to the OP on 11.11.2020 and 13.11.2020 requesting to do the needful, but, to no avail.  However, the OP instead of replacing the shoe vide message dated 15.11.2020 rejected the claim.  Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint. 
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and averred that it only acts as an intermediary through its web interface www.myntra.com and provides medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products to users of Myntra platform and that it does not directly or indirectly sell any products on Myntra platform and the privity of contract was only between the complainant and seller. However, purchase of the product in question by the complainant is not disputed. It has been denied that the OP was responsible for the delivery of the wrong product. Maintained request of the complainant was cancelled by the seller because right product had been delivered. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
5.     Per pleadings of the parties, purchase of the shoe in question by the complainant for an amount of ₹1,299/- vide invoice dated 22.10.2020 through the platform of the OP is an undisputed fact. The sole point of dispute before us is that as per complainant the shoe delivered to him on 26.10.2020 was not the one he had ordered. In this regard, the stand of the complainant is that he immediately lodged protest regarding the same with the OP and he was assured that the delivery boy would pick the shoe. However, when nobody turned up, complainant lodged complaint and received reply from the OP on 4.11.2020 (Annexure C-3) whereby the OP itself admitted the grievance of the complainant regarding wrong product delivered. Thereafter when nothing was done, series of messages (from page 9 to 18 of the paperbook/ Annexure C-4 to C-6) were exchanged. All these messages were exchanged with and replied by none other than the OP herein, therefore, now it does not lie in its mouth to say that it was only an intermediary to provide online platform to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods and in no way responsible to provide any replacement. 
6.     It is important to note here that even the claim of the complainant for return of the product was rejected by the OP vide message dated 15.11.2020 (Annexure C-6/page 18) by taking a vague plea that the product was shipped in a proper and intact condition after a successful quality check.  However, what the OP has totally failed to consider is that the grievance of the complainant was with regard to having been delivered wrong product and not a defective product.  Hence, we do not find any merit in the plea of the OP that the product was shipped in proper and intact condition after successful quality check.
7.     Further, it is worth mentioning here that it is common knowledge that every product sold through such online selling platforms is provided with certain period for return of the product or refund of the price, as the case may be.  It is not the case of the OP that there was no such period provided or that the complainant applied beyond such specified period. Therefore, once the complainant had immediately raised grievance, it was obligatory on the part of OP to have either replaced the product or refunded the price thereof. However, the OP failed to do either of the two. Therefore, the action of the OP certainly amounts to deficiency in service which must have caused harassment to the complainant.
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹1,299/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of raising the grievance i.e. 4.11.2020 till realization. The OP is at liberty to pick the wrongly delivered pair of shoe from the complainant at its cost.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for its deficiency in service and causing harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9.     This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	SD/-	SD/-
16/09/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rajan Dewan]
hg	Member	President