Orissa

Cuttak

CC/165/2023

Aayush Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Myntra Designs Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P K Nayak & associates

10 Jan 2024

ORDER

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

C.C.No.165/2023

 

Aayush Rath,

S/o: Sri Ananta Bhusan Rath,

At:Flat No.A/302,LIC Officers Quarters,

Surya Nagar,Near Banadurga Temple,

Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda,Odisha-751001.                     ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd.,

Buildings Alyssa,

Begonia & Clover,Embassy Tech Over,

Outer Ring Road,Devarabeesanahalli,

Village:VarthurHobbli,Bengaluru, represented

Through it’s Chief Executive Officer,Myntra.

 

2.       Branch Manager,

Axis Bank,Jagatpur Branch,

                    Cuttack.                                                                                   ...Opp.Parties

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   22.05.2023

Date of Order:  10.01.2024

 

For the complainant:      Mr. P.K.Nayak,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.1 :           None.

For the O.P No.2:             Mr. M.K.Routray Adv. & Associates.            

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant as made out from his complaint petition in short is that he had purchased through O.P no.1 a PUMA Men Grey & Black Humble IDP Mesh Regular Sneakers’ vide order No.121461723491593154903 for a consideration of Rs.2174/-.  The complainant could notice that the consideration amount has been deducted twice from his bank account which is available with O.P no.2.  Since it was an online transaction on 25.5.2022 and as because the consideration amount was deducted twice which he came to know from the message sent to him in his mobile phone, he had ventilated about the same through e.mail to the O.Ps and had sought for refund of the extra amount that which was deducted twice from his account for a single purchase.  Inspite of all his efforts, when the extra amount of money was not remitted back to his account, he had to file this case before this Commission seeking refund of excess amount of money of Rs.2174/- alongwith a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment as well as deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice by the O.Ps.  He has also claimed an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the O.Ps towards litigation expenses and has further prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

The complainant has filed copies of several documents alongwith his complaint petition in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the two O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P no.1 has been set exparte vide order dt.27.6.2023 since because the written version on behalf of O.P no.1 was filed beyond the stipulated period as provided in the C.P.Act.

          O.P no.2 has contested this case and has filed it’s written version wherein it has been stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable, it is barred under the principles of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and is thus liable to be dismissed.  The complainant has an account with the O.P no.2 but he is a joint account holder.  O.P no.2 claims to have not been deficient in it’s service towards the complainant of this case.  O.P No.2 has no knowledge about any such PUMA Men Grey & Black Humble IDP Mesh Regular Sneakers’ if purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.2174/- on 25.5.2022.  But the statement of account reflects that on 25.5.22 a sum of Rs.2174/- has been deducted twice from the account of the complainant and it is the complainant himself who was doing UPI transaction through online mode wherein O.P no.2 has no role to play.  As such, it is the submission of O.P no.2 to dismiss the complaint petition as filed.

          The O.P no.1 has filed evidence affidavit through one Sanchi Chhabra who has claimed to be the authorised signatory of O.P no.1.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P no.2, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i. Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if the O.Ps have practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.ii.

For the sake of convenience, issue no.ii  is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

After perusing the contents of the complaint petition, that of the written version of O.P no.2, written notes of submissions as filed, evidence affidavit filed by the O.P no.1 as well as the documents  available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant Aayush Rath had placed order through O.P no.1 online to purchase PUMA Men Grey & Black Humble IDP Mesh Regular Sneakers’ vide order no. 121461723491593154903 for a consideration of Rs.2174/- and for the said item an amount of Rs.2174/- was debited twice from his account on 25.5.22 which account he has with his banker who is O.P no.2 in this case.  When the complainant knew that a sum of Rs.2174/- has been deducted twice from his account on 25.5.22, he had infact made several correspondences with O.P no.1 in order to get back his unnecessarily debited amount.  The O.P no.1 could not file its written version within the mandatory period as prescribed in the C.P.Act for which O.P no.1 was set exparte.  However subsequently O.P no.1 has filed evidence affidavit through one Sanchi Chhabra who has claimed to be the authorised signatory of O.P no.1.  Be that as it may, neither the said Sanchi Chhabra nor O.P no.1 has filed any document in order to apprise this Commission that infact by virtue of any resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company to O.P no.1, the said Sanchi Chhabra was nominated to be the authorised signatory and was authorised to file her evidence affidavit on behalf of O.P no.1.  In this context, it would be worthwhile to cite  the pertinent decision of our Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2014 of 2011(Arising out of SLP( C) No.18179/2009, in the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs. M/s. Kingston Computers (I) Pvt. Ltd. decided on 22.02.2011 wherein it is held that, “In our view, the judgment under challenge is liable to be set aside because the respondent had not produced any evidence to prove that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was appointed as a Director of the company to file suit against the appellant and authorised Shri Ashok K.Shukla to do so.  The Letter of Authority issued by Shri Raj K.Shukla, who described himself as the Chief Executive Officer of the company, was nothing but a scrap of paper because no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors delegating its powers to Shri Raj K.Shukla to authorise another person to file suit on behalf of the company”.

Keeping the valuable findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in mind, when it is noticed here in this case that there is no document authorising the said Sanchi Chhabra to file evidence affidavit on behalf of O.P no.1, the evidence affidavit as filed by the said Sanchi Chhabra cannot be taken into consideration. 

O.P no.2 is the banker of the complainant who has actually no role to play since because the UPI online transaction was made by the complainant himself and the said complainant could notice subsequently that the consideration amount of Rs.2174/- has been deducted twice on 25.5.2022 from his bank account for the same transaction of purchasing PUMA Men Grey & Black Humble IDP Mesh Regular Sneakers’.  In this regard, the complainant had actually written many a times through e.mail and had also sent legal notice to O.P no.1 but as it seems that O.P no.1 had not responded properly.  Though initially O.P no.1 had sent a return e.mail seeking for the details of transaction from the complainant but thereafter O.P No.1 had remained silent which clearly signifies that inspite of the request of the complainant to return the excess amount of Rs.2174/- that which had been credited to the account of O.P no.1 company unnecessarily being debited from the bank account of the complainant which was with O.P no.2; the O.P no.1 had remained silent.  Thus, it clearly signifies that O.P no.2 was deficient in it’s service and has also practised unfair trade.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i &  iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is undoubtedly maintainable and the complainant is definitely entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

 

                                              ORDER

Case is decreed on contest against the O.P. no. 2 & exparte against O.P no.1 here in this case. From the facts and circumstances of the case it is O.P no.1 who is directed to refund the extra amount i.e. Rs.2174/- to the complainant with immediate effect.  He is also directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment as well as a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of his litigation. 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 10^th day of January,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.     

                                                                                         Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                  President

 

 

                                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                        Member