Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant:-      Self

The Opposite Parties  :-    Mr. Kunal Kumar Behera & Associate Advocates,  

JUDGMENT

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. This consumer complaint is presented by the complainant named above alleging deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops for their false statement of delivery of product communicated through e-mail to the complainant and putting forged signature of the complainant in preparing document of “ Proof Of Delivery” i.e. POD without delivering the goods sold to the complainant.    
2. The complainant seeks for an order directing the Ops to refund Rs.936.45 i.e. the amount paid for the product and to pay aRs.20,000/- as compensation towards sufferings caused to him due to unfair trade practice and deceitful service of the Ops.
3. The facts as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it necessary for adjudication of this dispute are that :-The complainant had purchased an apparel online from the Ops vide order #1096765-2013830-6148001 on 15^th December,2018 with a payment of Rs.402/- through debit card which was expected to deliver by 27^th December,2018. On 22^nd December,2018 he got an e-mail regarding successful delivery of the said order without actual delivery of the product upon which he raised a complaint with OP/Myntra Team over phone on 22^nd December,2018. In reply to his complaint, he has received an e-mail from Myntra officials regarding “Proof of Delivery “ i.e. “POD” copy of which is marked as  annexure in this complaint petition, where he found that, the executive of Ops has marked deliver on the document i.e. “POD” vide Annexure-1 by putting a forged signature of the complainant of his own. The matter was immediately reported to the Ops-Myntra Officials, then on 24^th December, 2018 at about 10.14 A.M he got a telephonic call from one of the Myntra Officials to get ready for receiving of the product and the said product was delivered to him at about 10.45 A.M on 24^th December,2018 which is received with protest through his e-mail dt. 24.12.2018 vide Annexure -2 of the complainant petition. Thereafter, on 25^th December,2018 he got an e-mail  vide Annexure-3 of his complaint petition from an executive of the Ops and again received an e-mail on 26.12.2018 from the Cash Manager from escalation desk – Myntra vide Annexure-4 of the complaint petition who beg apology for the inconvenience and further assured that, such case will not repeat again in future.
4. The complainant again narrated an event that , he had purchased three numbers of apparels by placing an order Vide Order ID #1097890-2094081-7745403 with OPNo.1 on dt.28^th December,2018 with a payment of Rs.1466.85 paid through debit card online. He was expecting to take delivery of the order on 11^th January, 2019 as committed by Myntra-Ops. The order was split into two packages out of which one package was delivered on 5.1.2019, the second  package containing a casual shirt value Rs.786.45 is not yet delivered to him. On 3^rd January, 2019 he got an e-mail regarding successful delivery of the said order vide Annexure-5 of the complaint petition. Upon receive of such e-mail the complainant raised a complaint with the Ops-Myntra team through e-mail & Tweeter  on 3^rd January,2019 . In reply to his complaint he received an e-mail on 4^th Januarya,2019 from Myntra/Ops regarding “Proof of Delivery” vide Annexure-6 of the complaint, while going through e-mail, it came to his limelight that ,the executive has again marked delivered by giving a forged signature of the complainant which reveals the habitual deceitful nature of the delivering executive of the Ops . The matter against deceitful act of the Ops was immediately reported to the Myntra Officials vide e-mail & Twitter and protesting the unfair trade practice of the Ops but no avail. Hence this complaint.
5. On being notice the Ops filed their respective written version denying the allegation of the complaint levying fault on each other. 
6. The Opposite Party No.1 submitted that he is not the seller of any product including the product under present complaint but merely an online intermediary providing a common platform to the buyers and independent 3^rd party seller all over the country. The Company is   engaged, among others, in providing trading/selling facility over the internet through its website www.myntra.com and mobile application(Mob App) to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transaction only . He is merely an intermediary shall not be liable to any 3^rd party information, date or communication link made available or hosted by him. Further submitted that it is the seller of the product who has the responsibility to supply and deliver the correct product to the addressee provided by the customer within the stipulated period of time. The whole grievance of the complaint is regarding home delivery of the product ordered by the complainant through it’s /OP 1. It is further submitted that, the OP 1 is neither a “Trader” nor “Service Provider” and there does exists any privity of contract between the complainant and OP 1. The complainant is not a consumer of the OP 1. In absence of seller as a party in this case the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of party. The OP No.1 has no role to supplying /delivery of the product sold by an independent seller through the Myntra Platform of the answering OP 1. It is further submitted that, It is the logistics service provider may be responsible for delivering /non-delivering of the product sold to the complainant. Further it is submitted, that as per information received from the concern seller the correct product was delivered to the complainant within the stipulated time in both of the alleged cases of the complainant. It is further submitted that, in both of these instance the complainant raised the same false grievance of receiving a confirmation e-mail regarding delivery of product but the product was not being delivered to him but no concrete & substantial evidence has been adduced by the complainant in support of his alleged grievance.  The complainant has cooked a false story. It is further submitted that, any communication passed by the answering OP -1 is directed by the seller of the product and no communication was ever made by the Op-1 on its own. It is further contended that, the averment in regard to forged signature of the complainant are falsely fabricated and hence, denied vehemently. The OP -1 in no way assumed liability for delivery of the order of the product. It is the logistics service provider solely responsible for delivery of the product sold to the complainant. The alleged grievance of the complainant as framed is to be answered by the logistics service provider . The “POD” i.e. “Proof of Delivery” received from the logistics service provider was also share with the complainant as such there is no cause of action against the OP -1 . With this submission the OP 1 urged to  dismiss the  complaint with exemplary cost.
7. The OP No.2 identified itself with its new name:- INSTAKART SERVICE PVT. LTD filed their written version and submitted that, it acts as a logistics partner of OP No.1 to facilitated logistics transaction between independent 3^rd party seller and independent end customers all over the country. The role of OP -2 is to provide a carrier service to various seller all over India to deliver their products to the users of the online platform. It is further submitted that, OP -2 is neither a trader nor service provider for the complainant and there does not exists any privity of contract between the complainant and Op 2. The complainant does not fall under the category of consumer of OP 2. The complainant has wrongly arrayed the OP-2 as a party in this  case. Hence, complaint is bad for mis-joinder of party. There exists a service agreement between the seller and OP 2 for delivering of the goods and not between the buyers and OP 2. The service of OP 2 is similar to a postman of India. It is further submitted that, the role of OP No.2 is limited to picking up the product from the seller of the product and delivering the same to the end customer without any kind of tempering within the stipulated time. The averments of non delivery of product and in regard to putting forged signature of the complainant in  preparing document of “ Proof Of Delivery” i.e. POD without delivering the goods sold to the complainant  are vehemently denied. It is further submitted that, the product ordered by the complainant in both the alleged matter that are presented by the complainant are duly delivered by the Op 2 and hence, all the averments as presented in a manipulative manner as such, denied in toto. It is further submitted that, there is not even a single document produced by the complainant to substantiate his averment made against the answering OP 2. It is further submitted that, the product ordered by the complainant was duly delivered by the OP 2 and the same was confirmed by the seller of the product. It is reiterated that,” POD “was also shared with the complainant which evidently shows the delivery of the product to the complainant. The OP No.2 being a Logistics Service Provider is not liable for any e-mail transaction which was sent through the Op No.1 to the complainant and there is no cause of action against the Op 2 . With these submissions the OP 2 prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
8. Heard and perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the respective submission of the parties.
9. Here in this case, it is not disputed that:-  complainant has purchased apparels vide Order #1096765-2013830-1648001 on 15.12.2018 with a payment of Rs.402/- online  through debit card and it is also not disputed that, the complainant for the second time has purchased three numbers of apparels by placing an order vide order ID No.#1097890-2094081-7745403 on dt.28.12.2018 with a payment of Rs.1466.85 paid through debit card online on e-platform of OP No.1 and that, the OP 1 has facilitated the transactions. It is also not disputed that, the OP 1 is acted as intermediary through its web interface “www.myntra.com” and provides a medium of platform to various sellers all over India to offer for sale their products to the user of the Myntra platform.
10. Nothing material is there on the record to hold that online market place service provided by the OP 1 to the customer (here the complainant), by introducing third party seller and logistics service provider(OP 2), for successful transaction has been provided free  of cost as such, it may not be discarded that, the Ops are service provider rather squarely comes under the definition of  service provider as defined under the Consumer Protection Act so and  the complainant is there consumer. As such, the submission of Ops that, there does not exists any privity of contract among the Ops and complainant is not acceptable.
11. Admittedly, the OP 2 re-named as INSTAKART SERVICE PVT. LTD acts as a logistics partner of OP No.1 to facilitate logistic transaction between the independent third party seller and independent end customer/complainant. It may not be disputed that, the Op 1 has introduced the 3^rd party seller in its e-commerce platform to the consumer /complainant and assured there for a successful transaction as such, submission of Ops that;-there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Ops is not acceptable. The O.P is an electronics service provider comes under the definition of sec 2( 17) of C.P Act 2019
12. The e-mail transaction dispatched to the complainant as relied by the complainant are placed in his complaint petition vide Annexure 1 to 7.The  contents of said Annexure 1 to 7  are   not specifically denied by the Ops and these are remaining un rebutted. The Ops have failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their contention that the complaint averment in regard to false signature are falsely fabricated rather, it is admitted that, on receiving alleged grievance of the complaint the OP 1 forwarded the same to the seller of the product and  “Proof of Delivery” i.e “POD “ was also shared with the complainant being directed by the seller of the produce and no communication was ever made by the Op 1 on its own. OP 1 has not filed any scrap of paper that, he has ever received any direction or instruction to send an e-mail to the complainant dated 22.12.2018 vide Annexure-1 of the complaint petition which contents as follows :-“Dear Sunil, Thank you  for contacting Myntra. As per our telephonic conversation please find the attachment for the “proof of delivery” (POD) of our order. As per the POD the order has been delivered successfully. Please feel free to contact us or further help. Regards” where the sample of a  signature of the complainant is found attached. In reply to which the complainant communicated to the authority of OP No.1 through e-mail dt.24.12.2018 vide Annexure -2 of the complaint petition with reference to “POD” i.e. “Proof of Delivery” that, he has received the article on 24.12.2018 at about 10.45 A.M from one of the Myntra executive but earlier he had   received a false “proof of delivery” (POD) with false signature of him/complainant from OP 1 vide Annexure -1 of the complaint petition . There after the Myntra executive beg apology on 25.12.2108 through e-mail vide Annexure-3 & 4 of the complaint petition which remained un-challenged/un- rebutted are clearly proved deficient service & the Unfair Trade Practice of the Ops in this asit is a clear instance of Unfair Trade practice as defined u/s 2 (47) of C.P Act. 2019 . 
13. There is no dispute that, the O.P-1 is providing e-commerce platform and introduced many sellers  to the complainant knowingly enough the nature and credibility of the sellers . The O.P-1 is a repute company providing e-commerce platform and we are unable to belief that, the complainant could not have placed reliance only on the O.P-1 before placement of his order. As such for any omission & commission of the sellers there through the e-commerce platform OP-1 causing injury to the complainant, the O.P-1 is personally & severally liable to compensate the complainant. There is no necessity to add Third Party Seller in this case as such submission of OPs that, complainant is bad for non-joinder & mis-joinder of party is not acceptable. However, the O.Ps is at liberty to reimburse the cost & consequences of this complainant form the concern Third        Party Seller.
14. As per Rule 4(5) of the Consumer Protection (e-Commerce ) Rule 2020 ,the O.P, being an e-commerce entity is duty bound to redress the complaint through a redressal mechanism within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint but here the O.P-1 has appeared in this case and filed their  written version shifting  its liability to the Third Party Seller but no grievance offices has been appointed to settle the grievance of the complainant and it is lingering before this Commission which is also a clear negligence on the part of O.P towards the complainant.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the Ops in this case are is playing Unfair Trade Practice  & deficient in service towards the complainant   caused financial loss , mental agony ,harassment to the complainant liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence, this consumer Complain is partly allowed in above terms. The pending application if any, stands disposed off with the following directions.                                                           ORDER

               In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances this consumer Complain is partly allowed against the Ops .The  the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- each as compensation towards sufferings caused to  the complainant for their deficient service & the Unfair Trade Practice which includes the cost of the alleged product which is not yet delivered to the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- each towards litigation costs to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Opposite Parties are liable to pay Rs.200/- each per day as compensation to the complainant till realization of the above said awarded amount.

        Dictated and corrected by me.

                     President

I agree               

                       Member

       Pronounced in open forum today on this 9^th  March 2023 under the seal and       signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly.

The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period of time due to Covid -19 situation &   in want of quorum in the Commission.

Member.                                                                   President