Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/803/2022

PARIDHI SINGLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MYNTRA DESIGNS PRI. LTD AND ANOTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

SHUBHAM DOGRA

03 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	803/2022
Date of Institution	:	06.12.2022
Date of Decision	:	03.07.2023

 

                                       

                                               

Pridhi Singla aged about 31 years d/o Mr.Parshotam Singla r/o H.No.1018, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh  

        ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. having Regd. Office at Buildings Alyssa, Begonia and Clover situated in Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560103, India and Branch Office at Village Phase-3b1, Sector 68, Kumbra, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Chandigarh -160062.

2.      Adilaxmi E-Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Cabin No.6, Property No.2, Gujrat Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi, Delhi-110092, Delhi, Delhi-110091.

3.      Tommy Hilfiger India Pvt. Ltd., having office at Gayatri Plaza, 55-A, Turner Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050, Maharashtra, India.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  

SMT.SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-

       

                Sh.Pranab Bansal, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Rahul Bansal, Adv.                 for complainant

                None for OP No.1

                OPs No.2 and 3 exparte.

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Brief facts of the case are as alleged by the complainant are that on 27.11.2021 she purchased a Tommy Hilfiger Unisex Black Solid Hard 4 Wheels Medium Trolly Bag  from OP No.2 through website of OP No.1 vide Invoice dated 28.11.2011 for a sum of Rs.4724/-, having warranty of 3 years.  When the complainant was travelling from Delhi to Chandigarh on 02.06.2022, she noticed the trolley bag was got cracked and broken in the manner the same could not be used in any manner. Left with no choice, she shifted all her stuff in some other bag at the very last moment.  The complainant uploaded the pictures of the damaged trolley as per the instructions of the OP No.1 and requested the OPs to refund the amount of the bag.  Finally, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 31.08.2022 upon the OPs to which she received a vague and evasive reply dated 31.10.2022 from OP No.2 who tried to escape its liability.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint against the OPs.
2.            In its written statement, OP No.1 has stated that it only acts as inter-mediatory through its web interface www.myntra.com and provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their product(s) to the users of the Myntra Platform. It has further been stated that these sellers are separate entities being controlled and managed by different persons/stakeholders and it does not directly or indirectly sell any products on the Myntra platform.  Rather all the products on the Myntra Platform are sold by third party sellers, who avail the online marketplace services provided by it on terms decided by the respective seller only.  It has further been stated the actual seller of the product in question is a third party seller (OP No.2) and not OP No.1 and as such the request for replacement/refund made by the complainant cannot be fulfilled by it. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Despite due service, OP No.2 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.01.2023.
4.     Despite due service, OP No.3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.06.2023.
5.         The contesting parties led evidence by way of their affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.  
7.         The perusal of the documentary evidence especially the invoice (Annexure C-1) on record reveals that the complainant purchased the product in question from OP No.2 through OP No.1.  According to the complainant, the product in question was having warranty of three years and the same got cracked/broken within few months of its purchase and the complainant approached the OPs but her grievance has not been redressed despite her repeated requests and service of the legal notice dated 31.08.2022. Neither the product has been changed nor the amount has been refunded by the OPs despite the requests of the complainant, which itself amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. 
8.     We do not find any merit in the contentions of OP No.1 because the product supplied to the complainant become defective after few months of its purchase. The OPs, in our considered opinion, have acted arbitrarily in the matter.  As provenly, the order in question was placed with OP No.1 and it is the prime duty of OP No.1 to ensure the delivery of genuine product to the end consumer. It is a reasonable presumption that the seller using the platform of OP No.1 for selling their products are verified and genuine sellers. OP No.1 cannot be allowed to shift its onus upon seller escaping its liability. 
9.      From the above discussion and findings, the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been proved, which certainly has caused harassment to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the OPs with direction to refund cost of the product in question i.e. Rs.4724/- so paid by the complainant and also to pay compensation cost of Rs.3,500/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.2500/- to the complainant. 
10.     This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay additional compensation cost of Rs.2,500/- apart from above relief. However, the complainant shall also return the product so received by her to the OPs on receipt of above awarded amount. 
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 03/07/2023
	Sd/- (SURJEET KAUR) PRESIDING MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER