Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/573/2020

Kanwardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mohinderjeet Singh

01 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Kanwardeep Singh S/o Sh.Mohinderjeet Singh, R/o Flat No.1062, Sector 39-D, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager, AKR Tech Park, 3^rd Floor, 7^th Mile, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu Gate, Bangalore, District, Karnataka:560068, India.
2. Mr.Abhishek Mishra, Manager-CC Escalation Desk, Myntra Desgings Pvt. Ltd, AKR Tech Park, 3^rd Floor, 7^th Mile, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu Gate, Bangalore, District, Karnataka:560068, India.

Email: … Opposite Parties

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant ordered ’56 items’ from website of OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.56,271. Out of the purchase orders, complainant retained ’11 items’ for a sum total of Rs.7,958/- and duly ‘returned 45’ items in their original condition,. While, settling the accounts OP No.1 has not completely refunded the money received from complainant’s credit card. The actual dues/damage as per the transactions were for Rs.7,958/- while complainant has been billed Rs.10,214.73/- i.e. an overcharge of Rs.2256.72.  The amount refunded was in shortfall. The OP and its representatives had the complete details of purchases made, actual amount due and the money to be refunded but inspite of the same OPs and its representative chose to not refund the excess money back to the complainant’s credit card thus causing severe financial implications. The complainant had send emails to the OPs for a resolution and for seeking refund of money overcharged but to no avail (Annexure C-4) colly. The complainant sent a legal notice on 18.09.2020 to the OPs (Annexure C-2). The complainant has approached the OPs and requested them to take necessary steps to resolve the issue at hand. However, the OPs have chosen to ignore the representations dated 11.03.2020 and submissions of the complainant and have taken no steps whatsoever in resolving the genuine grievances. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.  
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, file its written statement and stated that the complainant had purchased 56 items from the seller through the Myntra platform on different dates falling between 14.12.2019 to 23.12.2019 and paid Rs.48440.88/- only. The complainant requests for the return of 45 items and duly received the refund against each of the 45 products returned by him amounting to Rs.40,482.85/-. Thus the complainant had paid only Rs.7958.03/- for the 11 retained products and the complainant himself has admitted that he was liable to pay Rs.7958/- only against his orders. There is no grievance existing between the complainant and the Op No.1, but the complainant has filed the present complaint based on completely baseless, imaginary and arbitrary calculations. It is further submitted that out of the total items, the complainant retained 11 items, amounting to Rs.7958.03/- rest of the 45 items were returned to the seller and refund of Rs.40,482.85/- was initiated by the seller and the same was duly received by the complainant (Annexure –I). Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The sole grouse of the complainant is that the OPs illegally overcharged Rs.2256.72/- from him. Hence, prayed for the refund of the excess amount charged which created mental agony & harassment to him.

7.     The stand taken by the OPs is that the disputed transaction is for commercial purpose as the alleged order was not an ordinary one. A huge quantity of products for the purpose of resale was ordered and no other reasons seems justified for such a bulk order. Moreover, the total of the paid amount was not the Rs.56,271/- but only Rs.48440.88. It has also been contended that an amount of Rs.40482.85/- has already been admittedly refunded to the complainant and he has paid only Rs.7958.03 for the ordered products. Hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
8.     Perusal of the file reveals at page No.1 of the complaint where there is mention of total amount to be paid by the OPs as Rs.4016 at serial No.1, but in the same complaint at page No.8 in the prayer clause (a) there is mention of refund of the excess amount of Rs.2256.72/- which is absolutely different digit of the same document. Thereafter, there is prayer of refund of Rs.3066.69/- in the written submission of the complainant. We feel as the complainant is master of his complaint it was his choice to order 56 products but he retained only 11 out of them. Any qualified person knows his/her necessity in advance and accordingly, the orders are being placed as per the choice of design/colour, but in the present complaint it seems that the complainant himself is confused what to order and what not to. More so the prayer for the excess amount charged is not clear to the complainant himself. We are of the considered opinion that the complainant’s actions were not in good faith, but rather were an attempt to exploit the e-commerce company’s policies.
9.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.