District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/211/2022
(Date of Filing:-11.10.2022)
Smt. Proma Pal
261, G.T. Road, Baidyabati,
Hooghly, WB-712222
……..Complainant
-Versus
- Mukesh Bansal, Myntra Corporate Office,
Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd.
Buildings Alyssa Begonia and Clover
Situated in Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Varthur, Hobli, Bengaluru-560103.
- Customer Care manager, Myntra Designs Pvt Ltd.
-
- CEO, Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. having the same address as mentioned against serial no.1 (OP-1)
- Appropriate Authority, Returns Processing facility,
Survey Numbers 231, 232, and 233 Soukya Road, Samethanahalli village, Anugondanahalli, Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bamgalore 560067
…….Opposite Parties
Before:-
Mr. Debasish Bandyopdhyay, President
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Mrs. Babita Choudhury, Member
PRESENT:
Dtd. 05.06.2024
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member
Having been aggrieved over and dissatisfied with placing of an order with the OP for online purchase of an innerwear on 23.08.2022 and a saree on 27.08.2022 against proper online payment, deliveries thereof by the OP, subsequent return requests in respect of both the items raised by the Complainant, utter mess created by the concerned persons of the OP in the matter of picking up of the items from the Complainant’s place and non-sending the appropriate amount of refund against the returns, the instant complaint petition has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Firstly, it should be mentioned here before proceeding further in the matter of disposal of this case, that the case runs ex parte against all OPs, as, in spite of proper service of notice and allowance of sufficient time and opportunities, the OP did not appear before this Commission even on a single occasion. Thus question of submission of written version and evidence on affidavit by the OP does not arise.
First three OPs belong to the same E-commerce organization i.e. Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. The actual credentials of the fourth OP i.e., ‘Appropriate Authority, Return Processing Facility’ appear to be vague.
Brief facts of the case
Reportedly, the complainant, claimed to be a habitual customer since long and also an ‘Elite’ customer of the OP E-commerce organization (hereinafter referred to as OP ECO) placed two orders through the OP ECO’s mobile App, one for an innerwear worth Rs.1399/- on 23.08.22 and the other for an ‘exchange order’ of a saree worth Rs.3913/- on 27.08.22 against full payments via UPI.
The items were delivered on 29.08.22 and 30.08.22 respectively.
However on 30.08.22 the Complainant raised return requests in respect of both the items on size issue (item No. 1) and misrepresentation of details of the product (item No. 2). On 31.08.22 sms was received from the OP ECO that the concerned prsons were out for pick-up of the said items.
On 31.08.22 someone on behalf of OP CEO appeared around 12 noon at the Complainant’s place and picked up product 2 i.e. the saree. One hour later another person came down but denied to pick up item 1 i.e. the innerwear on the plea that he was supposed to pick up item 2.
Anticipating a mess, the complainant made contact with the OP and she was assured by the OP CEO that the matter would be resolved within 72 hours.
But neither any sms nor any mail was received by the Complainant that there were some mistakes by the concerned persons in the matter of picking up of the items from the Complainant’s place.
However even after waiting for 72 hours and in spite of making repeated persuasions in following two weeks, no sign of resolving the problem was seen apart from receiving false assurances from the OP CEO.
After several follow ups the Complainant received sms from the OP CEO on 13.09.2022 that a refund of Rs.1399/- was processed but it was apparent that the refund was in respect of item no. 1 i.e. the innerwear which was surprisingly at that point of time was lying with the Complainant. Thus the refund was not for the item 2 i.e. the saree which was actually picked up following the return request.
On being contacted by some supervisor in connection with the confirmation of the refund of Rs.1399/-, the Complainant brought the mistake to the notice of that supervisor and was assured again that the mistake would be rectified within one hour and a confirmation mail would be sent to the Complainant accordingly.
But to the utter disappointment of the Complainant, no such mail was received.
This time also repeated persuasions were of no use.
Finally, one customer care executive asked the Complainant to share a photo of item no.1 and the Complainant acted accordingly.
But the OP CEO remained thoroughly unresponsive.
Escalating the issue with the National Consumer Helpline yielded no result.
Allegedly the OP CEO has removed all the queries and complaints involving the instant issue from their system with an intention to erase all traces of their wrongdoings.
This is further claimed by the Complainant that so far as the items ordered were concerned there were misrepresentations of the details of the products in the respective website and mobile app.
The Complainant has annexed a list of events in chronological order, the copies of confirmation of order, successful payments, deliveries of the orders, confirmation of exchange with payment details and delivery, return request confirmation e-mail and sms, complaint lodged with National Consumer Forum and screenshot of the product description.
Expressing grievances over the OP CEO’s attempt to present untrue and misleading product descriptions in their site and mobile app and considering the OP’s treatment with him as ‘deficiency in service, unfair trade practice’ the complaint petition has been filed in which the petitioner prays for imposing direction upon the OP to make refund of the entire amount of Rs.3913/- along with 18% interest ‘from the date of payment till the date of actual realization’, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing financial loss, harassment and mental agony, litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-, to arrange picking up of item 1 and any other relief as provided by the statute.
The Complainant’s declared address is within the district of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit as prescribed by the Act.
Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Now the issues whether there was any deficiency of service and whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief will be taken together in the concluding part of the order as the issues are mutually inter-related.
Materials on records viz. the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit, annexed documents and brief notes of argument filed by the complainant are perused.
However, the OP did not feel it a necessity to appear before this forum, observe the basic statutory formality by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and by taking part in the argument.
In view of the above and on perusal of the case record and documents, this Commission is of the opinion that there was gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the OP’s part. The OP ECO appears to have been grossly negligent and indifferent in the matter of resolving the issue.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that CC No.211/2022 be and the same is partly allowed ex parte.
The Commission hereby directs that the OP E-commerce organization (i.e. OP 1, 2 and 3) will be jointly liable to make refund of the entire amount of Rs.3913/- paid for purchase of the saree which was ultimately picked up by the OP’s person on the basis of a return request, with interest @9% for the period from 27.08.22 to the actual date of payment of the principal amount.
Besides, the OP ECO will also pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and Rs 5,000/-towards litigation cost to the complainant. OP ECO is being directed also to pick up item no.1 i.e. the innerwear simultaneously.
OP ECO is being directed to comply with this order within 45 days of this order failing which the OP ECO will be liable to pay a further amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Consumer Legal Aid Account . Thus the complaint case bearing no.CC/211/2022 succeeds on contest but in part. Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
