Punjab

Sangrur

CC/203/2018

Balbir Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paytm Corporate Office - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Lovepreet Singh Walia

24 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR.

                                                    

                                                Complaint No.  203

                                                Instituted on:    24.04.2018

                                                Decided on:       24.08.2022

 

Balbir Dass son of Sh. Nasib Dass, resident of VPO Loha Khera, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Paytm Corporate Office, B-121, Sector-5, Noida 201301 (UP) India through its Managing Director.

2.             Blue Dart Express, Sahara Airport Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400099  through its Managing Director.

3.             Blue Dart Express, Opposite HDFC Bank, Hotel Mayur, Friends Colony, Kaula Park, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through its Manager.

4.             New Gen Partners, Khasra No.26 & 27, Kapasedha Extension, Behind Fun and Food Village, Delhi through its Manager.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Lovepreet Walia, Advocate.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Saurav Garg, Advocate.

For OP No.2&3         :       Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate.

For OP No.4             :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.       

1.             Shri Balbir Dass, complainant  has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties  on the ground that the complainant placed an online order of Apple iphone 6 having 32 GB (Rose Gold) with the OP number 1 on 18.12.2017 vide order number 4300708373  for Rs.19,798/- under the offer of the OP number 1 through paytm. The order was placed successfully.  The OP number 1 gave a warranty of one year on the said mobile and the complainant make the payment to the OP and received cash back of Rs.3000/- in the said account.   It was assured by the OP number 1 that the mobile set shall be delivered shortly.  The case of complainant is that he received one parcel from the OP number 3 on 20.12.2017 and after receiving the parcel from OP number 3, the complainant opened the same and the opening process of the said parcel was recorded by the complainant in his mobile phone and complainant was shocked to see that there was no Apple iphone 6 in the said parcel, rather it contained one dummy mobile phone of Galaxy J1 4 Gmobile set. Further case of complainant is that the complainant immediately sent emails to OP number 1 and disclosed about the same then OP number 1 admitted their mistake and assured the complainant that they will replace  it with the Apple I phone, but despite repeated requests the same was not replaced. Thus,  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to deliver the apple iphone 6 (32 GB Rose Gold) to the complainant or to refund its price i.e. Rs.19,798/- along with interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the OP number 1 is the owner of website Paytm, that the complainant has alleged that he vide order ID 4300708373 placed an order for purchase of one apple iphone 6  of Rs.19,798/- on 18.12.2017, but the said product was delivered by OP number 1 by courier through OP number 2 and 3, that OP number 1 is working as an intermediary and OP number 1 cannot be held liable for the acts of third party. On merits, it is stated that role of the OP number 1 is only of an online facilitator and it does not have any control over the transactions between the purchaser/seller. It is stated that no possession of the product changes hands from the merchant to the fulfilment centre through courier, therefore, the OP cannot be held liable for the same. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 2 and 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that they have entered into an agreement with OP number 1 to carry shipments from the point of origin to the destination as specified.  All shipments are picked up intact/sealed condition and delivered to the consignee. It is stated that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious one and that the complaint is not maintainable against OP number 2 and 3 as the parcel had been booked by OP number 1 and the same has been delivered to the complainant on 19.12.2017 in sealed condition. The other allegations are denied by Ops.

4.             Record shows that OP number 4 was proceeded against exparte on 13.08.2018. 

5.             The parties produced their respective evidence.

6.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by the parties along with supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant placed an online order of Apple iphone 6 having 32 GB (Rose Gold) with the OP number 1 on 18.12.2017 vide order number 4300708373  for Rs.19,798/- which was placed successfully.  The learned counsel for OP number 1 has further argued that a warranty of one year on the said mobile was provided and the complainant make the payment to the OP and received a cash back of Rs.3000/- in the said account. The learned counsel for complainant has further argued that  though the complainant received one parcel from the OP number 3 on 20.12.2017 and after receiving the parcel from OP number 3, the complainant opened the same and the opening process of the said parcel was recorded by the complainant in his mobile phone and complainant was shocked to see that there was no Apple iphone 6 in the said parcel, rather it contained one dummy mobile phone of Galaxy mobile set as mentioned above. Further learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant immediately sent emails to OP number 1 and disclosed about the same then OP number 1 admitted their mistake and assured the complainant that they will replace  it with the Apple  iphone, but despite repeated requests the same was not replaced, as such the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint as prayed.

8.             On the other hand, OP number 1 has admitted that the complainant vide order ID 4300708373  had placed an order for purchase of one apple iphone 6  of Rs.19,798/- on 18.12.2017, but the said product was delivered by OP number 1 by courier through OP number 2 and 3 and  that OP number 1 is working as an intermediary and OP number 1 cannot be held liable for the acts of third party. Further learned counsel has argued that OP number 1 is only of an online facilitator and it does not have any control over the transactions between the purchaser/seller. It is further contended that no possession of the product changes hands from the merchant to the fulfilment centre through courier, therefore, the OP cannot be held liable for the same. Lastly learned counsel has contended for dismissal of complaint.

9.             The  learned counsel for OP number 2 and 3 contended vehemently that the OPs number 2 and 3 have entered into an agreement with OP number 1 to carry shipments from the point of origin to the destination as specified.  All shipments are picked up intact and in sealed condition and delivered to the consignee. It is contended further that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious one and that the complaint is not maintainable against OP number 2 and 3 as the parcel had been booked by OP number 1 and the same has been delivered to the complainant on 19.12.2017 in sealed condition.

10.           It is not in dispute that the complainant placed an order for the mobile set in question vide order number 4300708373 and the same was delivered to the complainant by OPs number 2 and 3, but the grievance of the complainant is that when after receiving the parcel the complainant opened the same, there was no iphone mobile set as ordered by the complainant rather there was a dummy mobile phone of J1 4G. This fact is also supported by the affidavit of the complainant and also photostat copies of   Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-11 and CD is Ex.C-14, which was even played before this Commission on the laptop and it clearly reveals that when opened the parcel there was no iphone 6 as ordered rather there was a dummy Samsung mobile set as stated above. There is no explanation from the OPs number 1 to 3 that how it happened and who put the dummy Samsung Mobile at the place of iphone 6 which was ordered by the complainant by paying the huge amount.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.19,798/- for the purchase of iphone 6 and not for a dummy mobile set. On the other hand, the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that the OPs number 1  to 3 supplied the iphone 6 as ordered by the complainant nor the OPs have produced any evidence to rebut the CD, which is on record as Ex.C-14.  This fact also finds support from the copy of empty shipment undertaking form Ex.OP1/6, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the complainant received the package on 20.12.2017 (date of receipt) from Blue Dart (courier name) with tracking ID 317916638 containing dummy Samsung set instead of iphone set as mentioned above. This document Ex.OP1/6 is dated 20.12.2017. From this document it is itself clear that the OP number 1 supplied the dummy Samsung set instead of ordered iphone 6 set as mentioned above. As such, we find that the complainant is successful in proving his case by producing cogent and reliable evidence on record.   In the circumstances of the case, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OP number 1 is directed to refund to the complainant the amount of the mobile set i.e. Rs.19,798/- after deducting the amount of Rs.3000/- which the complainant has admittedly received the cash back from the OP number 1.

11.           In view of our above discussion, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1 and as such, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to refund to the complainant the purchase price of the iphone 6 set i.e. Rs.16,798/- (Rs.19798/- minus Rs.3000/-). The OP number 1 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental tension agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.2000/- as  litigation expenses.

12.           The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

13.           This order be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        August 24,2022.