| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA Received by way of transfer Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2018 Date of institution:19.01.2018 Date of Decision: 10.10.2022 Ruchika Bansal aged 32 years daughter of Late Sushil Bansal, R/o 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 RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT - The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that on 15.11.2017 the complainant placed an order of two mobiles sets make vivo through online for herself and for the mother namely Sunita Bansal for her personal use and need and made the payment of Rs. 37,980/- to respondent i.e. paytem through account No. 13202000001114 maintained by the mother of the complainant at HDFC Bank, Mata Rani Road Branch, Ludhiana, through the paytm ID using by the complainant. On the same day i.e. 15.11.2017 the respondent cancelled the order of the complainant due to unavailability of stocks of said mobile sets ordered by the complainant and the respondent disclosed to refund the payment to complainant against ARN Nos.. 75503727320016419648457 & No.75503727320016420052616. It is further alleged that on 15.11.2017 the HDFC Bank sent two SMS of payment of refunding the payment of Rs.37,980/- but no payment so far transferred to the bank account of the mother of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant approached the respondent regarding the non-payment to the complainant, the respondent replied they had made the payment through ARNS Numbers. The complainant several times approached the respondent through e-mails and the respondent 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, the complainant sought the following relief against the OP:-
- To pay Rs.37,980/- with interest, which was paid to the Op and the OP also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation
- To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. In reply, the OP has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the Opposite party, paytm E-Commerce (p) limited is the owner of the website th September 2017 to represent paytm E-Commerce Pvt Ltd in legal proceedings. The copy of the board resolution in favour of the deponent is annexed herewith as Annexure OP-1; that the complainant vide the present complaint, has alleged that complainant on 15/11/2017 she ordered two vivo mobile phones vide order id 4137114943 and 4137097079 for an amount of Rs. 37980/- it has been stated that on 15/11/2017 itself, paytm E-Commerce cancelled the order due to unavailability of stock and refunded the amount vide ARN no. 75503727320016419648457 and no. 75503727320016420052616 respectively . It has been further admitted that on 15/11/2017, HDFC Bank sent two Sms of refunding of Rs. 37980/-; that paytm E-Commerce Pvt. Ltd is merely an intermediary as defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000 and exempted from liability for third party information , data and communication link made available or hosted by it. Opposite party at The actual contract for sale is directly between the said merchant and you (Complainant). Paytm provides the services of listing catalogues, pricing provides the services of listing catalogues, pricing, shipping , etc. which is informational and it is up to follow it or not….. Paytm has no control over: (a) the existence, quality, safety or legality of itmes displayed; …. (c) the ability of Merchants or seller to sell items;…. Paytem does not , at any point of time during any transaction between buyer of time during any transaction between buyer and Merchant or seller, take the ownership of any of the goods offered by the Merchant or sellers. Nor does paytm, at any point, assert any rights or claims over the goods or service offered by the Merchat or Seller to the buyer. In using the market place service, you explicitly agree and acknowledge that: -
-
4 That the paytm is not liable for any manufacturing defect, faulty product received , warranty claims, after sales service for any products purchased on the paytm’ platform…. The Terms and conditions are annexed herewith as annexed herewith as “Annexure-2”. - That the fact of the matter, as admitted by the complainant in the present complaint is that immediately after cancellation of the orders 4137114943 and 4137097079 dated 15/11/2018, paytm E-Commerce pvt Ltd refunded the amount of Rs. 17990/- and Rs. 19990/- vide ARN no. 7550372732001641964847 and 75503727320016420052616 respectively . Pursuant to receipt of the complaint, Opposite party diligently conducted an internal inquiry to locate the actual dispute raised by the complainant and coordinated with HDFC Bank using which the payment was made by the complainant and into which the amount was refunded by Opposite party . In response to the enquiry conducted by email dated 21/03/2018, HDFC Bank duly informed paytm E-Commerce Pvt Ltd vide its email of even date that the transactions are not updated in their account . They further represented that they will settle their (cardholder’s) account as and when the KYC documents will be update. The copy of the email dated 21/03/2018 is annexed herewith as Annexure 3.
- That it is pertinent to mention here that even therefore with a view to resolve the grievance of the complainant, paytm Ecommerce Pvt Ltd continued to follow up rigorously with HDFC Bank. Vide email dated that they have reversed the amount of refund to paytm may transfer the same to the complainant. Paytm may transfer the same to the complainant . Paytm E-commerce Pvt Ltd thereafter immediately, contacted the complaianant and sought her bank account details for processing the NEFT transaction for amount Rs. 17990/-and 1999/- which was reversed by the HDFC Bank. Pursuant to receipt of thebank account details, the opposite party immediately refunded the said amounts of Rs 17990/- and 19990/- to thecomplaiant vide UTRno. CMS806949329 on 19/04/2018. The fact of this NEFT transaction was duly informed to the complaiant vide email dated 19/04/2018. The copies of email dated 10/04/2018 and 19/04/20`8 is annexed herewith as Annexure 4 and 5 respectively.
- That as of now, no cause of action lies against Opposite party since the grievance of the complainant has already been resolved to her complete satisfaction. Even otherwise, the delay was caused due to the acts of HDFC bank and not due to any fault of the present Opposite party. The complaint is thus liable to be dismissed at once being infructuosus. The service of the Opposite party cannot be termed as deficient and cannot be saddled with the liability for an act of independent third party i.e. HDFC Bank as alleged by the complainant in the present complaint.
- That the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that there is no prima facie case against the Opposite party. The complaint is wrongfully trying to extract compensation from the Opposite party herein without any deficiency of service on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Rest of allegations made by the complainants against the answering OP have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- 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.
- We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
- From the pleadings and evidence led by the parties,
- From the perusal of the documents placed on record by both the parties in support of their evidence, it reveals that complainant placed an order of two mobiles sets online and transaction of Rs. 37,980/- was made through paytm but due to unavailability of stocks, the OP cancelled the order of the complainant. On 15.11.2017, the HDFC Bank sent two SMS of payment of refunding the payment of Rs.37,980/- but no payment so far transferred to the bank account of the mother of the complainant. It is important to mention here that when the OP canceled the order, he should have refunded the money immediately but the OP did not do so. Therefore, the OP is liable to refund Rs.37,980/- along with interest @ 7% from the date of purchase of the mobiles sets.
- In the light of said discussion, the complaint stands allowed. The OP is directed to refund Rs.37,980/- to the complainant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of purchase of the mobile sets. The OP is further directed to pay a lum sum amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation. The OP is further directed that if there is any mistake of the bank, then the money should be recover to the complainant from the bank. 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 10, 2022 (Ranjit Singh) (Ranvir Kaur) | |
