DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA

Received by way of transfer Consumer Complaint No.49 of 2018

                                            Date of institution:19.01.2018

                                            Date of Decision: 26.10.2022

Ketan Bansal aged about 38 years son of Late Sh. Sushil Bansal, resident of 1117/2/1, Shivpuri Road, Ludhiana.

…….Complainant

Versus

Paytm Mall, B-121, Sector 5, Noida-201301, through Manager/Director/authorized signatory

                                                          ……..Opposite Party

 QUORUM:   

   HON’BLE MR. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT.

                  HON’BLE MRS. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

PRESENT:

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv. for complainant

Sh. Mohit Chibber, Adv. for OP

ORDER

RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

1. The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Party on the ground that the on 15.11.2017, the complainant placed on record of two mobiles sets make VIVO through online himself and for his wife for personal use and need and made the payment of Rs.35,980/- to OP through his account maintained by the mother of the complainant at HDFC Bank, Mata Rani Road Branch, Ludhiana, through the Paytm Id by the complainant. On the same day i.e. 15.11.2017, the OP cancelled the order of the complainant due to unavailability of stocks the said mobile sets ordered by the complainant and OP disclosed to refund the payment to the complainant. On 15.11.2017, the HDFC Bank sent two SMS of payment of refunding the amount of Rs.35,980/- but no payment so far transferred to the bank account of the mother of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP regarding the non payment to the complainant, the OP replied they had made the payment through ARNs number. The complainant several times approached the OP through emails and the OP regularly replied that the matter has been referred to the hands of their senior and they will solve the matter of the complainant as soon as possible but till date the matter of the complainant did not solved nor any amount credited in the account of the mother of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore, the complainant prayed that the complaint be kindly be admitted and following reliefs may kindly be allowed to the complainant 
   1. To refund the amount of Rs.35,980/- with interest    
   2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation
   3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges   
2. Upon notice, the OP has filed written reply stating therein that the OP paytm e commerce limited is the owner of the website
3.  In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered various documents. On the other hand, the OPs has also tendered documents in support of their evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the payment of Rs.35,980/- made online by the complainant on 15.11.2017 to the OP for buying two mobile sets. OP cancelled the order on the same day due to unavailability of stocks. However, the payment was returned to the complainant only on 18.4.2018 without any interest. The complainant alleging deficiency in service is claiming interest on delayed payment, compensation due to mental harassment and litigation expenses. OP has not denied the delay in payment but has tried to shift the liability on the bank, by claiming that the delay has been caused by it. Now it was the duty of the OP to facilitate on services on both sides and it cannot disown its responsibility of proper services by shifting the burden on the bank though it can sue the bank for any default or negligence on its part but the fact remains that OP is responsible for deficiency in services towards complainant. 
6. Consequently, the complaint of the complainant succeeds. OP is liable to pay the amount of Rs.35,980/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of payment by the complainant to the OP, till the date of return to him. He is further liable to pay Rs.10,000/- due to mental harassment and Rs.7000/- as litigation expenses. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
   •  

October 26, 2022

(Ranjit Singh)

(Ranvir Kaur)