Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/566/2018

Monika Thakur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Myntra Online Shopping - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

05 Sep 2019

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	566 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	08.10.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	05.09.2019

 

 

 

 

Monika Thakur D/o Gurpal Singh Thakur, R/o #2031, G.F., Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.  

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

Myntra Online shopping Website through Manager Operations, Corporate Office at Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd., Ark Tech Park-B, Block, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, 7^th Mile, Kudlu Gate, Banglore 560068

2^nd Address:  Return Process Facility, Survey Number 231,232 & 233, Soukya Road, Samethanahalli Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Banglore 560067

 

 ………. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

         SH.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

 

Argued By:       Complainant in person.

Sh.Rohit Kumar, Adv. for Opposite Party

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant on 12.9.2018 placed an Online order through Myntra website for purchase of Black Blazer of Van Heusan Brand for Rs.1859/- (Ann.C-1 & C-2), but when the delivery was made on 18.9.2018, it was found to be of Grey Colour. The complainant returned back the said Grey Blazer to the Opposite Party with request to send the Black Blazer as has already ordered.  However, on 28.9.2018 when the complainant received the fresh delivery from the Opposite Party, she was again surprised to receive Grey colour blazer instead of black blazer, as ordered, therefore, the complainant made return request to the Opposite Party, but the delivery boy of the Opposite Party refused to pick the return delivery on the pretext that he has been asked to take the delivery of Blue Colour Blazer.  As such, the wrong item delivered by the Opposite Party i.e. Grey colour Blazer is lying with the complainant.  It is averred that due to non-delivery of ordered item i.e. Black Colour Blazer by the Opposite Party, the complainant suffered a lot.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of Opposite Party as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The Opposite Party 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 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 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 nor he paid any amount/consideration for the articles in question to Opposite Party and as such, is not responsible for any deficiency, as alleged in the complaint by the complainant.  It is submitted that it is the seller and not the Opposite Party who is responsible for replacement/refund of a particular product and hence Opposite Party cannot be made liable for any deficiency in service of another entity which has not been impleaded as party in present complaint. It is also submitted that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the Opposite Party as the consideration for purchase is received by independent sellers listed on the website of the Opposite Party. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

 

3]      The complainant filed replication thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the Opposite party made in the reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       Annexure C-1 (Page 12) evident that the complainant placed on Online order for Black Blazer of Van Heusen with Opposite Party. It is also proved vide Annexure C-2 (Invoice), dated 18.9.2018 that the complainant was delivered Grey Blazer instead the ordered one. The complainant admittedly sent return request and accordingly, the Opposite Party vide email dated 26.9.2018 (Ann.C-4) asked the complainant to provide the barcode.  The relevant extract of the said email dated 26.9.2018 is reproduced as under:- 

“I understand you are concern as you have received the wrong product.  I will certainly assist you with the same.

As per the shared images, I have noticed that the barcode of the product is missing as you have shared the price tag.  Hence, I request you to share the barcode of the product so that we can accommodate your request of exchange.”

 

7]       The complainant also provided the Bar code as asked for as is proved from Ann.C-3.  Thereafter, the complainant was supplied with another Blazer and to the surprise of the complainant again, she was delivered with Grey colour Blazer.   

 

8]       It is a fact that the complainant has not been delivered with the Black colour Blazer as ordered by her and instead a Grey Blazer has been delivered to her.  It is admitted that the said Grey Blazer is lying with the complainant, which has not been taken back by the representative of the Opposite Party despite the return request sent again. 

 

9]       The non-delivering of the item as ordered by the complainant i.e. Black Blazer and not taking back the wrong delivered item i.e. Grey Blazer by the official of Opposite Party, clearly constitutes gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party, which certainly caused her mental agony and harassment and forced her to enter into avoidable litigation.  Therefore, the complainant deserves to be adequately compensated.  

 

10]      The Opposite Party also took stand that there is no privity of contract with the complainant, as it 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 Opposite Party is 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 Party is totally untenable and baseless.

 

11]      The consumer(s) place order with Opposite Party with a hope that it 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 cannot escape from its liability stating that it is not the manufacturer of the product and only provides portal for sale, because the Opposite Party 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. 

 

12]      Keeping in view the facts & circumstance of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of OP is proved.  Therefore, the present complaint is allowed and the Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1859/- to the complainant.        The Opposite party is also directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.7000/- to the complainant towards compensation and litigation expenses, on account of rendering deficient services coupled with unfair trade practice and thrusting avoidable litigation upon the complainant.

 

         This order shall be complied wit­h by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- part from the above relief.

 

13]      However, the complainant shall return the wrongly delivered product i.e. Grey Blazer to the Opposite Party 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

5^th September, 2019                        

                                                                                      Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER