Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/200/2018

Aseem Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shvetanshu Goel

14 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/200/2018
Date of Institution	:	03/05/2018
Date of Decision	:	14/03/2019

 

Aseem Bansal S/o Sh. Sunil Bansal, R/o H.No. 1900, Sec. 22-B, Chandigarh (now R/o Sarup Plaza Shopping Complex, Pratap Road, Moga, Punjab).

…..Complainant

                                                                         

V E R S U S

 

1.      Myntra Designs Pvt. Limited, AKR Tech. Park, B-Block, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, 7^th Mile, Kudlu Gate, Bangalore-560068, through its Managing Director, Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd.

 

2.      Managing Director, AKR Tech. Park, B-Block, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, 7^th Mile, Kudlu Gate, Bangalore-560068

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Shreya Vashisht, Vice Counsel for Sh. Shrey Goel, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Amit Mahajan, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	Opposite Party No.2 Ex-parte.

 

PER Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are that on 13.06.2016 the Complainant ordered an article (Roush Club Men Black oxford Shoes) worth Rs.2725.80/-. The article was delivered by Opposite Party No.1 on 17.06.2016 vide Annexure C-2. However, the article did not match to the description as provided on the e-commerce website of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant raised his grievance with the Opposite Parties not only telephonically on the registered customer helpline number, but also through various e-mails, pursuant whereof on 24.06.2016 the product was picked up by Opposite Party No.1, but no refund has been initiated. Eventually, the Complainant served a legal notice dated 04.01.2018 (Annexure C-10) upon the Opposite Parties, but the same did not yield the desired results. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 contested the Complaint and filed its written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the product was purchased from the third party seller who had sold the product to the Complainant and supplied it to the Complainant through third party logistic service provider. Thus, Opposite Party No.1 has no role/involvement as it is an intermediary which provides on-line platform to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its Myntra platform. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for Parties.
6.         The case of the Complainant is that the shoes in question were ordered by him on 13.06.2016 after paying an amount of Rs.2,725.80/-, which was delivered on 17.06.2016 as per Annexure C-2. The article in question was not of the choice of the Complainant, hence the same was returned to the Opposite Parties which was picked up by them on 26.06.2016. Precisely, the process of ordering and returning of the article completed within 10 days. As per the case of the Complainant, neither the new pair of shoes as desired by him, nor refund, has been given by the Opposite Parties. Hence, the present Complaint.
7.         Significantly, the Opposite Party No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the Complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
8.         The stand taken by Opposite Party No.1 is that it is merely a Platform and hence, nowhere its role is involved to facilitate the after sales services to the Complainant.
9.         Perusal of e-mail dated 21.06.2016 (Annexure C-6) available at Pg. No.19 of the paper-book, makes it clear that the Opposite Parties responded the Complainant that his case will be dealt with utmost priority and later, on 23.06.2016, the Opposite Parties again apologised for the delay in providing response to the Complainant and inconvenience caused to him. Thereafter, the pick-up of the product was made, through return mode, and finally, the request of the Complainant for the refund was denied due to quality check fail as per Annexure C-7. Perusal of these e-mails clearly speak that at one stage, the Opposite Parties were ready to refund or replace the product in question, but to the reasons best known to them, they refused the Complainant for the same. Through its reply, Opposite Party No.1 has taken the plea that the product in question was used by the Complainant for three days and hence, the refund was refused. However, there is no concrete evidence on record to show that the pair of shoes in question were used by the Complainant, was in torn condition or was non-replaceable due to any other reasons.  Hence the act of Opposite Parties for sending a wrong product and later on non-refunding/non-replacing the same, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which certainly caused immense physical and mental harassment to the Complainant.
10.         In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly & severally, directed:-

(i)     To refund Rs.2,725.80/- to the Complainant being the cost price of the Shoes in question;

(ii)    To pay Rs.2,500/- to the complainant towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and physical & mental harassment caused to him.

(iii)   To pay Rs.2,500/- as litigation expenses.      

 

                This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall be liable to pay                        the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till its realization, besides compliance of directions as at Sr.No.(iii) above.

11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
14/03/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”