Punjab

Sangrur

CC/340/2016

Deepak Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paytm - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Kulwinder Singh Toor

21 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                             

                                                Complaint No.  340

                                                Instituted on:    01.04.2016

                                                Decided on:       21.10.2016

 

Deepak Garg son of Shri Charan Pal Garg, resident of Gaushala Road, Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Paytm, B-121, Sector 5, Noida 201301 (UP) through its Managing Director.

2.             Infinity Informatics Private Limited, 301, Eros Apartment, 56, Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri K.S.Toor, Advocate.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate.

For OP No.2             :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Deepak Garg, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant placed an order of Apple iphone 6 (16 GB –space Grey) with the OP number 1 on 09.03.2016 vide order number 1590099476 under the offer of the OP number 1. It is further averred that the cost of the mobile set in question was Rs.52,000/- and there was a discount of Rs.51,965/- on the same, as such, the complainant was to pay an amount of Rs.35/- only with other charges in this way, the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.60/- only. It is further stated that the Op number 1 assured that they will despatch the product on 9.3.2016 and the same will be delivered within 8/9 days. It is further stated that the said amount was paid by the complainant from the account of Rakesh son of Tarsem Chand bearing account number 30764486101, who is the cousin brother of the complainant.  It is further stated that the complainant received an email dated 10.09.2016 from the Op number 1 vide which the order of the complainant was cancelled.   Further case of the complainant is that though he requested the Ops a number of times to deliver the product, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to provide the mobile phone in question i.e. Apple iphone 6 (16 GB) to the complainant and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Op number 1, it is stated that the OP number 1 neither sells nor offers to sell any products. It merely provides a technology platform where independent third party seller can list their products for sale. Op number 1 is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the website nor does Paytm intervene or influence any customer in any manner. It is further stated that the OP number 1 is not a warranter of the product, nor is liable for any manufacturing defect. It is stated that the complainant is not a consumer. It is stated further that there may be certain orders that Paytm Merchant partners are unable to accept and service and these may need to be cancelled. It is stated that the complainant has no cause of action to fie the present complaint and the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum is also disputed. On merits, it is stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Paytm. It is stated further that the Op duly replied to the emails written by the complainant and informed the complainant about the real picture and was informed that the order of the complainant has been cancelled and the amount of Rs.60/- has been refunded to the complainant.

 

3.             Record shows that the Op number 2 did not appear despite service, as such Op number 2 was proceeded exparte on 08.08.2016.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 affidavit of Rakesh Kumar, Ex.C-3 copy of booking order, Ex.C-4 copy of cancelled order form, Ex.C-5 copy of bank statement of Rakesh Kumar and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.Op1/1 affidavit along with annexure OPW1/1 to annexureOPW1/3 and closed evidence.

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, written reply and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP number 1. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that though the complainant placed the order of Apple iPhone 6 with the OP number 1  on 09.03.2016 vide order number 1590099476 for Rs.52,000/- with a discount of Rs.51,965/- meaning thereby the complainant was to pay Rs.35/- (Total Rs.60/- only including other charges) to the OPs, which were duly paid by the complainant on 09.03.2016, but the same was not delivered to the complainant.  Ex.C-2 is the copy of invoice which clearly shows that the complainant was to pay Rs.35/- only for that product. Ex.C-4 is the copy of  email dated 10.3.2016 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that ‘your order has been cancelled and the refund of Rs.60/- for this item has been initiated.  Ex.C-1 is the affidavit of the complainant in support of his contention.  

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint as the order in question was booked with the OPs from Sangrur. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Meghalaya State Commission Shillong in The M.D. Air Deccan & others versus Ram Gopal Aggarwal 2014(1) CLT 181 wherein it has been held that where contracts for services and/or goods are entered into over the internet, then for the purposes of Consumer complaints, part of the cause of action arises inter alia at the complainant’s place of business. If acceptance of the contract is communicated to him through the internet, including the medium of emails, this is in addition to the other places where a consumer may choose to file a complaint in accordance with the other provisions of Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In the present case also, it is an admitted fact of the complainant that the order was booked at Sangrur, as such this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint in view of the legal position explained above.  On the other hand, the stand of Op number 1 is that the OP number 1 neither sells nor offers to sell any product as it provides only the technology platform where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale.  As such, the OP number 1 has contended that the product was to be supplied by the OP number 2 i.e. Infinity Informatic Private Limited, New Delhi, who is exparte in the present case. Further a bare perusal of the file clearly reveals that the complainant placed the order for the purchase of Apple iphone 6 and paid the amount of Rs.60/-, which was duly accepted by the Op number 1, we feel that the contract of purchase of Apple iphone 6 was completed, but it is not open for the Op number 1 only to cancel the order at their own, as the contract cannot dissolved by OP number 1 and the consent of the complainant (other party) was also required.  As such, we feel that by not fulfilling the contract, the OPs are deficient in rendering service to the complainant.  

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to provide to the complainant the apple iphone 6 (16-GB space Grey) to the complainant at Rs.60/- only and further to pay a consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses  to the tune of Rs.2000/- only.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 21, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member