Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/270/2018

Aditya Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Myntra Designs Private Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shivam Grover Adv. , Ivan Singh Khosa Adv. & Sakshi Doda Adv.

28 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	270 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	10.05.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	28.02.2019

 

 

 

 

Aditya Sharma s/o Mr.Avtar Krishan Sharma, R/o 419, Labour Bureau Enclave, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh 160047

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Myntra Designs Private Ltd., AKR Tech Park-B Block, Krishan Reddy Industrial Area, 7^th Mile, Kudlu Gate, Bengaluru 560068

2]  Consulting Rooms Private Limited, Khasra No.14//6, 7, 13,14,15, 17,18,23,24,25,16//1, 2, 9, 10,11,12/1, 17//3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11/2, 12, 13,14,15, Village Binola, Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122413

3]  Sane Retails Private Limited, Ksquare Industrial Park, Warehouse 4, Before Paghda Toll Naka, Nashik Mumbai Highway, Near PUshkar Mela Hotel Rahul Markhede, Padgha – Bhiwandi, Mumbai, Maharastra 421101 {Deleted vide order dated20.7.2018}

     ….. Opposite Parties 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA     MEMBER

                        SH.RAVINDER SIHNGH     MEMBER                     

 

 

Argued By: Mrs.Sakshi Doda, Adv. for the complainant

Sh.Amit Mahajan, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2.

Opposite Party No.3 deleted.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

        The case of the complainant in brief is that he ordered three items with Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Toms Men Beige Burlap Slip-Ons, Toms Women Gold-Toned and Forever-21 Navy Casual and paid for all three items to the tune of Rs.1966.35, Rs.2294.17 and Rs.1186.35 respectively (Ann.C-1 colly.).  However, on receipt of the delivery, the complainant was shocked to see that the items which he ordered and paid for, were not delivered and the same were totally different from one he ordered (Ann.C-2 colly).  Accordingly, the complainant sent email to Opposite Parties in this  regard, in response to which the OPs while expressing their regret assured to give update regarding return within 2 business days, but surprisingly, after few days, the OPs sent new email thereby flatly refusing to replace the wrong delivered products (Ann.C-3). Alleging the said act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party NO.1 has filed reply stating that the goods in question have been bought by the complainant from the independent third party seller selling its product on the website operated by answering Opposite Party. It is stated that there is no privity of contract with the complainant as the Opposite Party NO.1 only acts as an intermediary through its web interface and provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale  and sell their product to user of the Myntra Platform.  It is also stated that these sellers are separate entities being controlled and managed by different persons/stakeholders. The Opposite Party NO.1 is only a facilitator and neither responsible for the products that are on the website exhibited by various third party sellers nor intervene or influence any customers in any manner.  It has been specifically mentioned that  the complainant has not bought any goods from Opposite Party NO.1 nor he paid any amount/consideration for the articles in question to Opposite Party NO.1 and as such, is not responsible for any deficiency,  as alleged in the complaint by the complainant.  It is submitted that the complainant has received complete refund against 3rd Product “Trousers” from Opposite Party NO.3, which has not been mentioned by the complainant. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

         The Opposite Party NO.2 has also filed reply stating  that it being a reseller, delivered the product to the complainant, as it was received from the manufacturer in a sealed box.  Further, the logistic service provider had also confirmed that the ordered product was delivered in intact condition to the complainant without any tempering.  It is stated that Opposite Party NO.2  is not engaged in sale of any goods manufactured or produced by its own, rather it is engaged in selling of goods manufactured and produced by others.   Denying all other allegations, the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         Opposite Party NO.3 has been deleted vide order dated 20.7.2018. The relevant extract of the said order reads as under:-

“Counsel for the complainant states that she could not find the address of OP No.3 and she wants to give up OP No.3.  In this regard she has appended a note on the complaint.  Accordingly OP No.3 is ordered to  be deleted from the array of OPs. The Reader is directed to make necessary deletion with red pen wherever required.”

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for OPs NO.1 & 2 and  have also perused the record .

 

5]       The booking of the products in question as well as delivery thereof is well proved on record by way of Tax Invoice (An.C-1).

 

6]       The main grouse of the complainant is that the he has been delivered all wrong  products than ordered and the factum of wrong delivery was duly & timely intimated to the OPs through email. The intimation sent by the complainant through email to  the  Opposite Parties about wrong delivery of the products is also proved vide Ann.C-3.

 

7]       On the other hand, the stand of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 is that there is no privity of contract with the complainant, as ‘they merely provides an online marketplace  where the independent third party sellers can list their products for sale; therefore, the sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listing of products on the website  and OPs No.1 & 2 are neither responsible for the product that are listed on the website by  various third party sellers’ as well as their delivery.  Such a plea of Opposite Parties NO.1  & 2 is totally untenable and baseless.

 

8]       The perusal of Tax/Retail Invoice (Ann.C-1 Page 16) suggests that the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are not only providing platform to the intending sellers for booking of the order for goods which are made available on their website, but goods are also delivered and collected back by them in case of return.  The consumer(s) place order with Opposite Party NO.1 & 2 with a hope that they will get good bargain and better products, but their faith shatters when they are not provided with better quality products and sometimes are delivered with the products other than the products ordered as has also happened in the present case.   The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 cannot escape from  their liability stating that they are not the manufacturer of the product and only provides portal for sale, because the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 allows the companies to project their products for sale on their portal,  so it is their legal obligation to keep a check for the rightful delivery of the products sold through their portal services.   Pertinent to mention that refund of the amount of one product is claimed to have been refunded by Opposite Party No.2, which further corroborates the above observations of this Forum.

 

9]       Keeping in view the facts & circumstance of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the deficiency in service on the  part of OPs No.1 & 2 is proved.  Therefore, the present complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are jointly & severally  directed to refund an amount of Rs.5,446.87/- (payment of all the products), if not yet refunded  and minus if any amount has been paid out of it.  Since, it has not been clarified/proved by Opposite Party NO.2 that  what amount it claimed to had refunded, thus an order for Rs.5,446.87/- (after deducting the amount already paid, if any) has been ordered for the refund.

 

10]      The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay a lumpsum amount of  Rs.7,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and litigation expenses, on account of rendering deficient services and thrusting litigation upon the complainant.

 

         This order shall be complied wit­h by the OPs No.1 & 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- part from the above relief.

 

11]      However, the complainant shall return the wrongly delivered products to the Opposite Parties after receipt of above awarded amount, against receipt.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.  

Announced

28^th February, 2019                                                                                                                                                                          Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER