Haryana

Karnal

CC/586/2020

Abhishek Dahiya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paytm E-Commerce Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

B.R. Dahiya

23 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 586 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.18.12.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:23.05.2022

 

Abhishek Dahiya son of Shri Babu Ram, resident of House no.441, Sector-6, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Paytm E-Commerce Pvt. Ltd., B-121, Sector-5, Noida-201301 Uttar Pardesh through its proprietor/Director/Authorized signatory.

2.     Puma Sports India Pvt. Ltd. FC7, Khasra no.27/9, Internal Road, Behind Fun and Food village, Kapashera, New Delhi-110037 through its Authorized Signatory.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Naveen Dahiya, counsel for the complainant.

                    Smt. Seema Bhardwaj, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Opposite party no.2 exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant booked two track pants of Puma Men Blue Solid Regular Fit Track Pant size S worth Rs.2008.04+240.96 tax=2249 and Second one is Puma Men Black Solid Regular Fit Track Pant size M worth Rs.2008.04+240.96 tax=2249 and total a sum of Rs.4498, online through Paytm Mall on his name, vide dated 22.11.2020. Complainant paid the said amount from his account. Thereafter, complainant received two courier packets which were wrong product and when complainant opened the packets, he shocked to know that he received a cheap product of different company. The complainant has tried several times to contact with Paytm mall for receiving the different product of different brand but no mobile number was available on the website and then complainant sent email for returning the different product but said email was also not responded by Paytm mall i.e. OP no.1. When the product was purchased the discount voucher was also available on the website which was applied by the complainant successfully in which a cash back of 30% was retuned back/credited to the Paytm wallet of the complainant but the said cash back is also not received by the complainant. There is a return policy of fifteen days of the receipt of the product and the complainant has clicked on return/replacement button many times but it did not respond. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 27.11.2020 to the OPs, but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; mis- joinder and non-joinder of the parties and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 is marketplace platform. An order gets placed by the buyer/customer using the online marketplace platform of the OP no.1. The order is then marked to the designated Merchant/Seller i.e. M/s Puma Sports India Pvt. Ltd. i.e. OP no.2 in the present case. The Merchant/Seller i.e. OP no.2 is an independent third party seller, bound by a market place agreement executed with the OP no.1, who displays his products over the online marketplace platform of the OP no.1. Thereafter, OP no.2 packs the product to the courier agency that is also an independent third party entity. On receipt of the physical possession of the product from the Merchant/seller i.e. OP no.2, the courier agency delivers the products to the buyer/customer i.e. complainant. It is further pleaded that the role of the OP no.1 is only that of a facilitator/intermediary and it does not have any control over the transaction between the Merchant/Seller, courier agency and the buyer/customer i.e. complainant. Throughout the entire cycle of the processing of the order, till the delivery of the product, the OP no.1 has no control or role at all the existence of the product, packaging of the product, delivery of the product. OP no.1 has not attained any type of ownership in the ordered product. The ownership of the product lies with the seller till the delivery of the product. Therefore, OP no.1 cannot be held liable for any of the grievance as alleged by the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant approached the OP no.1 via email dated 25.11.2020 stating that he wants to return the product but the return button is not working as alleged, but OP replied to the said email and asked the complainant the exact issue with the product in order to assist him better on 02.12.2020 and sent a subsequent reminder on 04.12.2020, which the complainant never replied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service, therefore, exparte proceeding initiated against it, vide order dated 29.09.2021 passed by this Commission.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, receipt of legal notice Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, copy of bill/invoice Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, CD Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant on 27.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Lokesh Sugandh, Authorized representative as Ex.OP1/A, copy of authority letter Ex.OP1, copy of term and conditions of Physical Goods Marketplace Ex.OP2, copy of guidelines of the company Ex.OP3, copy of marketplace agreement Ex.OP4, copy of cash detail Ex.OP5, copy of screen shot Ex.OP6,  copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP7, copy of email Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP no.1 on 04.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

 8.            Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant has purchased two track pants on 22.11.2020 for an total amount of Rs.4498/- from the website of OP No.1.On receipt of the delivery, it was found that there was a cheap product of different company. Thereafter, complainant lodged many complaints, but no response was received from the OPs. He further argued that there was a return policy of fifteen days of the receipt of the product and when complainant has clicked on return/replacement option, it did not respond. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, prayed for allowing the same. 

9.             Per-contra, learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that Paytm Mall & Bazar is an online market place and provides only a platform for different sellers to sell their products and for different buyers to access and purchase amongst variety of goods offered by various sellers subject to the terms and conditions as enumerated on the website of OP No.1. She further argued that the OP no.1 is only that of a facilitator/intermediary and it does not have any control over the transaction between the Merchant/Seller, courier agency and the buyer/customer. She further argued that complainant approached the OP no.1 via email dated 25.11.2020, OP replied to the said email and asked the complainant the exact issue with the product in order to assist him better on 02.12.2020 and sent a subsequent reminder on 04.12.2020. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           Admittedly the complainant had placed two orders for purchasing of two track pants through Paytm Mall i.e. OP No.1 and the seller of OP No.1, namely Puma Sports India Private Limited i.e OP No.2 had delivered the product at the address of complainant. 

11.           It is evident from the copy of invoice Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 that complainant had ordered two track pants through OP no.1 and this fact has not been denied by the OP no.1. The main grievance of the complainant is that he had received the cheap/different quality of track pants from the OP no.2 and due to that he made many complaints but OPs did not respond and when he sent the email in this regard to OPs then option of return/replacement was not responded.

12.           On the other hand, in order to rebut the version of complainant, OP no.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Hence, the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

13.           The OP no.1 has taken a plea that OP No.1 that it is only a platform to book the product and that the products are being sold by the sellers, therefore, it has no responsibility of any kind. In this regard, we are of the considered view that the sellers have been authorized by the OP No.1. By merely saying that OP No.1 has no responsibility, the OP No.1 cannot escape from its liability and this plea taken by OP No.1 has no force.

14.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

15.           As per the invoice Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, the complainant had purchased two pants for an amount of Rs.4498/-, hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.4498/- alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses, etc.

16.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.4498/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization.  We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Both the OPs are jointly severally liable. However, OP no.1 is at liberty to recover the said amount from OP no.2, which has sent the wrong product. The complainant is also directed to return the product in question to the OPs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:23.05.2022

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

           Member                         Member