Haryana

Karnal

CC/98/2016

Parveen Mehta S/o Atam Parkash Mehta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paytm Head Quarter, One 97 Communications - Opp.Party(s)

15 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                            Complaint No.98 of 2016

                                                           Date of instt. 30.03.2016

                                                           Date of decision:15.9.2017

Paveen Mehta age 27 years, son of Shri Atam Parkash Mehta, resident of House no.128, ward no.3, Chaudhary Mohalla, Taraori, District Karnal.

                                                                                                                             …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Payatm, Head Quarter, one 97 Communications, B-121, Sector 5, Noida- 201301 (UP) and Regd. Office at 1^st  floor Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019, through its MD/GM/ authorized signatory, Mob: 0120-4770770.

2. Infinity Infomatic Private Ltd. 301, Cross Apartment, 56, Nehru Palace New Delhi-110019-Mobile 098104-00108.

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……. President.

              Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

 Present  Complainant in person.

                Shri Vishal Kundi Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                Opposite party no.2 exparte.

ORDER:         

                        (Jagmal Singh President)          

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging therein that the opposite party launched a scheme to sell the Apple Iphone-6, 16GB, sold by opposite party no.2 through opposite party no.1, showing the MRP of Rs.52,000/- after giving 100% discount to the purchaser i.e. at the rate of Rs.35/- and Rs.25/- as shipping charges. The complainant placed an order for purchase of the abovesaid mobile vide order no.1590097091 dated 9.3.2016 and paid Rs.60/- to opposite party no.1, vide DC transaction no.201603098441037 and delivery of the Iphone was to be given to him on or before 17.3.2016. He was very excited for place the said order and waited for his phone, but he was shocked to receive the e-mail from opposite party, vide which they cancelled his order and refund the amount of Rs.60/-. Then, he contacted the opposite party and asked about the cancellation of the order, but they did not give any satisfactory reply. Thereafter, he requested the opposite parties several times for delivery of his order regarding purchase of Iphone mobile, but they did not pay any heed to his request. Due to this acts and conduct of the opposite parties he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment.

2.                     Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement stating there in that M/s ‘One97 Communications Ltd. is the owner of the website

 3.            Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite party no.2, but opposite party no.2 did not appear despite service, as such opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte 20.12.2016

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16.

5.             On the other hand, opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of M Sivakumar Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2.

6.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.             From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that admittedly the complainant placed an order for purchase of Apple Iphone 6, 16GB (space grey), vide order no.1590097091 dated 9.3.2016, which was accepted by the opposite party and the complainant paid Rs.60/- as costs of mobile and shipping charges, vide transaction no.201603098441037 and the delivery of the said Iphone was to be given to the complainant on or before 17.3.2016. It is also admitted by the parties that the said order of the complainant has been cancelled on the very next i.e. on 10.3.2016. Now question arises that whether the opposite parties were right in cancellation of the order or not. From the documents placed on the file by the complainant it is clear from Ex.C4 that Rs.60/- were received by the opposite party no.1 for order no.1590097091 for the mobile phone in question at 08:08 p.m. on 9.3.2016.  It is pertinent to mention here that the said order of the complainant has been cancelled on 10.3.2016 at 11:40 as is clear from Ex.C7. Thereafter, the complainant made various e-mails to the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.1 had replied all the e-mails.  The learned counsel for opposite party no.1 argued that there was a mistake in the display of the price of the product and it was not possible for opposite party no.2 to give the product of Rs.52,000/- in Rs.35/- only and the opposite party no.2 was unable to deliver the product and due to this reason the order was cancelled. This argument of the opposite party no.1 has force.  The opposite party no.1 has placed on the file the terms and conditions as Ex.OP2. Condition no.6 under the head Paytm Market Place is very much relevant regarding the matter in question. The cancellation of any order can be made under this clause. According to this clause the order can be cancelled on account of inaccuracies or errors in pricing information specified by the merchant partner. All the terms and conditions enumerated on the website of the opposite party no.1 and this fact has been admitted by the complainant. The complainant stated that they have not studied the terms and conditions before placing the order. As already stated above the order of the complainant has been cancelled by the opposite party no.1 on the very next day i.e. on 10.3.2016 and the amount has been refunded to the complainant by the opposite party no.1. So, in these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the opposite party no.1 has cancelled the order of the complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions which were already available on the website of the opposite party no.1. So,  the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.             As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 15.09.2017

                                                         President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                       (Anil Sharma)

                          Member