Complainant Manoj Jai filed this complaint for a claim of Rs. 65,498/- for defective product purchased online order through Paytm website and compensation of Rs. 22,000/- for loss and harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

2          The case of the complainant is that he ordered a Lap Top “Apple Mac Book Air 13” through Paytm App and paid Rs. 65,498/- on line to Paytm through IDBI Bank, at Bokaro. When the product was received, it was found to be defective and not working properly. He lodged a complaint for order ID No. 1958847260 to opposite parties for return back the product and refund of the amount paid.

            Complainant on 29.08.2016 received a letter of apology from Paytm care with mentioning to visit nearest service centre at Bokaro and provide DOA (Dead on arrival) letter. However, the complainant through E-mail asked the address of service centre in his area on 02.09.2016. On the same day at 17:26 hours O.P. Paytm care send E-mail replying, kindly co-ordinate with merchant and he will resolve the issue.

            Complainant sent E-mail on 03.09.2016, 09.09.2016, 16.09.2016, 20.09.2016, 13.10.2016 and 06.12.2016 but O.P. on each date only regretted and apologized for the inconvenience. But till date the issue is present as before.

            On 13.10.2016 and 16.12.2016 wrote a letter to Grievance Officer regarding refund but he did not reply and hence this case is filed.

3          Complainant has filed the following documents in support:-

Anx-1 Copy of Invoice dt. 12.08.2016.

Anx-2 to 2/37 Copies of E-mail between the complainant and Paytm care

                officials.

Anx-3 to 3/10 Copies of letter to Grievance officer of Paytm and E-mail replies.

Anx-4 Copy of bank passbook regarding payment.

Anx-5 Copy of service Delivery challan dt. 31.05.2017.

4          O.P. No.1 to 3 appeared filed W.S. along with Anx-A& B.

                        It is submitted that “ One 97 Communications Ltd” (Paytm) is the owner of the website www.paytm.com along with the mobile Application named “Paytm and it is an online market place and acts as a platform for different sellers to sell their products and do not exercise ownership over the goods to be sold. Therefore, Paytm has no responsibility and it facilitate the resolution of dispute through various modes and it does not give any warranty for manufacturing defect. In fact, the contract is in between the seller and the complainant and seller may be responsible. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the Paytm and complaint is liable to be dismissed.   O.P. No.3 filed Anx-A, B is support.

5          O.P. No.4 Epic Infosys has not appeared, although notice was served and ex-parte proceeding is initiated.   

F I N D I N G S

6          We perused the record. We hold that the complainant is a consumer since he paid money for the product on the assurance of proper service to the sold product and dispute is a consumer dispute within the C.P. Act.

7          The crux of the matter is that the complainant purchased a Laptop “Apple Mac Book” available on website of the O.P. No.1 Paytm and the product when received did not functioned properly for which he lodged complaint for Redressal or refund of paid amount.

            It appears that O.P. No.4 Epic Infosis has sold the product on 12.08.2016 as per Anx-1 to the complainant. Anx-1 shows that product has been shipped by O.P. No.4. Anx-5 which is service delivery challan during pendency of the case dt. 31.05.2017 shows the problem “Moc book does not boot OSX and shows? (Question Mark)”. This clearly shows that the purchased product has defect which should have been rectified but the complainant wants to refund of the money for which the complainant is entitled.

                        Since O.P. No.4 has not appeared to clarify its position, hence, O.P. No.4 is liable for negligence and deficiency in service.  

8          As per Anx-A and B filed by O.P. No.1 to 3, it appears that there is no liability or warranty over the product being sold using its website. So O.P. No.1 to 3 also cannot escape liability from the fact that it has not replied properly to this complainant on first complaint received by O.P. Paytm and Anx-2 series shows the E-mails conversation between O.P. No.1 to 3 assuring to solve the problem with sellers and took longer time giving false assurances. So, O.P. No.1 to 3 are liable for mental harassment to the complainant.

9          Hence, we allow the claim of the complainant, hold that O.P. No.4 is liable for deficiency in service for selling of defective goods and hereby directed to refund Rs. 65,399/- (Rs. Sixty five thousand three hundred ninety nine) only with 12% interest (twelve percent) since 12.08.2016 to the complainant along with Rs. 2000/-(Rs. Two thousand) only for litigation cost.

                        O.P. No.1 to 3 Paytm is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rs. Five thousand) only for mental harassment to the complainant.

            All the payment must be paid within 60 days from passing of this order. If the main claim of refund is not paid within time, the rate of interest will be enhanced to 18% (eighteen percent) till realization.

            O.P. No.4 has right to recover Rs. 65,399/- (Rs. Sixty five thousand three hundred ninety nine) only from the manufacturer.

            Let a copy of this order be sent to O.P. No.4 for information and compliance of the order at the cost of the complainant.