Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 304
Instituted on : 09.07.2018
Decided on : 15.01.2024
Parveen Kumar son of Krishan resident of 70/138 village Dighal, at present R/o H.No.1933 Sector-1, near JatBhawan, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant
Vs.
- Myntra Pvt. Ltd. 3rd Floor, AKR Tech Park, 7th Mile, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu Gate, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka through its Managing Director.
- Savan Retailers Private Limited, 11/29, Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi, Central Delhi, Delhi-110060 through its Manager.
..........................Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Vijay Pal Gehlot Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Lalit Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had ordered and purchased online one pair of Adidas shoes from the opposite party No.1 and opposite party no.2 is seller, who sent the same to the complainant vide invoice no.1000000002169331 dated 10.06.2018 for Rs.19999/-. Complainant received the said shoes on 12.10.2018 but after opening the packing, it was found that the shoes are not genuine and not of Adidas brand. The shoes were of local company i.e. HTL shoes. Complainant contacted the opposite partiestelephonically and the opposite parties sent the delivery boy at the house of complainant for giving new pair of shoes and taking the previous pair of shoes but the delivery boy refused to take the previous pair of shoes saying that it is not the genuine product. The complainant again made a complaint to the opposite parties but the opposite parties refused to accept the replacement request. Complainant requested the opposite parties many times either to replace the shoes or to refund the price but to no effect. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the shoes with new and genuine one or to refund the cost of shoes i.e. Rs.19999/- and also to pay Rs.50000/- on account of mental harassment and as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties.Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that opposite party provides online marketplace platform/technology and/or other mechanism/services to the seller and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic commerce for various goods, by and between respective buyers and sellers and enables them to deal in various categories of goods including but not limited to watches, clothes, footwear and accessories products etc. It is further submitted that answering respondentis an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third-party sellers and independent end customers. The independent third-party sellers use Myntra Platform to list, advertise and offer to sell their products to the users/buyer who visit Myntra Platform. Once a buyer accepts the offer of sale of the products made by the third party seller on the Myntra platform, the seller is intimated electronically and is required to ensure that the products are made available and delivered in accordance to the delivery terms as per the terms for sale displayed by seller on Myntra Platform. It is further submitted that opposite party has no role in the entire transaction undertaken between the complainant and the independent third party seller and hence, opposite party cannot be held liable for providing the facility of replacement/refund with respect to the product, which was sold to the complainant by the independent third party seller.All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong anddenied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the product was duly delivered by the opposite party to the complainant in a sealed box which is also admitted by the complainant in para no.2 of its complaint. The product was delivered in a sealed box or intact condition by the opposite party, but when the complainant made the replacement request of the alleged product and same was refused by the delivery boy when he went for pickup the product by saying that it is not genuine product. . The complainant is trying to cheat the opposite party by replacement with another product. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on dated 15.09.2021. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.DW1/A and closed his closed on 19.05.2022. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 made a statement that reply already filed on their behalf be read in evidence and closed his evidence on 31.01.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by opposite party no.1 as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the complainant. As per bill Ex.C1, the complainant had purchased a pair of Adidas Men Grey & Blue shoes for Rs.19999/- from the online platform i.e. Myntra but as per the photocopy of photograph Ex.C3 he received HTL shoes from the opposite party instead of Adidas. As per document Ex.C4, the return request has been declinedbut no reason for declining the request of return has been mentioned on this document by the opposite party. On the other hand, as per the opposite party no.2, when the complainant made the replacement request of the alleged product and same was refused by the delivery boy when he went for pickup the product by saying that it is not genuine product. In this regard it is observed that how the delivery boy came to know that the product was not the same, whether the product was packed in his presence by the opposite parties or the same was opened in his presence by the complainant. He might have delivered the product in a sealed condition to the complainant, then how he can say that the product was not genuine. On the other hand, opposite parties have not placed on record any authentic evidence to prove the fact that the Adidas shoes were packed and the same were delivered to the complainant. The opposite party no.1 cannot escape from its liability stating that they are not the manufacturer of the product and only provide a platform for sale, because they allow 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. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 jointly & severally to refund the price of shoes i.e. Rs.19999/-(Rupees nineteen thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 09.07.2018 till its realisation and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only)as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to hand over the shoes in question to the opposite parties at the time of making payment by the opposite parties.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.01.2024
.....................................................
Nagender SinghKadian, President
……………………………….
TriptiPannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
