BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.62 of 2018
Date of Instt. 12.02.2018
Date of Decision: 15.05.2019
Rohit Chopra S/o Sh. Pawan Chopra age 32 years R/o H. No.266, Lakshmi Pura, Jalandhar City, Punjab Pin 144001.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Shoppers Stop Ltd. Through its Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative. MBD Neopolis Mall, BMC Chowk Beside Hotel Raddison, Jalandhar 144001.
2. Shoppers Stop Ltd. Through its Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative. Umang Tower, 5th Floor, Mindspace, Off. Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai, Maharastra-400 064 Ph: (022) 6129 0400 Fax: (022) 2844 5060
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Jatinder Sharma, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is consumer as he ordered online on the mobile application of the Shoppers Stop, two products one is men's leather formal shoes of STOP Brand amounting to Rs.999/- and other is kittens baby shoes of Rs.250/- on 28.01.2018, vide order No.123556400 and made the payment with the loyalty points, SS Credit and net banking and the order was confirmed by the OP and a confirmation mail was sent by the OP to the complainant and the mail is annexed with the complaint. It is the duty of the OP to provide the product as per the commitment and specification mentioned on their web portal being a reputed and big company.
2. That on 3rd February, 2018 complainant received a mail from the OP showing their inability to deliver men's leather formal shoes with the reason the product is out of stock, but the consideration of the product was already paid by the complainant and accepted by the OP, a complaint was sent through mail to the concerned person, but who failed to supply the leather shoes, which was required to the complainant for his personal use. The complainant is facing harassment due to the conduct of the OP as it is the habit of the OP, not first time rather the OP committed such like mistake previously also. For not providing the product is clear cut deficiency of service and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to deliver the said product i.e. men's leather shoes to the complainant on the priority basis and further OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and further OP be also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-. The entire amount be returned to the complainant with interest @ 36% per annum.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone and further averred that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum because in realty, the complainant has filed the instant complaint with malafide intention and ulterior motive to blackmail the OP for extorting money from the OP, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and further admitted that the complainant delivered an order on 28.01.2018 and accordingly, one product i.e. SKU 200903407 dispatched to the complainant on 1st February 2018, which was duly received by the complainant on 3rd February 2018. The other item covered under SKU 200456956 was canceled on 3rd February 2018 due to out of stock and refund was initiated on the same day and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer qua the OP as far as alleged purchase intended by the complainant is concerned as the said item was neither purchased nor delivered to the complainant by the OP and amount was duly refunded immediately as the item order was out of stock. It is also pertinent to mention over here that all the terms and conditions related to online purchase are mentioned clearly in FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) in our online portal, which clearly states that “if an item goes out of stock after an order placed and received an order confirmation, then the OP will put forward their best attempts to fulfill the order by sourcing the selected item. In the event they are unable to source it, then the OP will inform and cancel the item and reverse any charges made to your credit/debit card against that item”. In view of the above clause mentioned in the portal, the OP has neither committed any deficiency in service rather the OPs provided their best available services to the complainant, but the complainant in spite of having received the refund of the item not delivered to him, has preferred the present complaint only to harass the OP by misleading this Forum and only to grab whatever amount he can obtain by filing false complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant placed an order for purchase of two items and out of that one item was delivered to the complainant and remaining was canceled for want of out of stock and its price has been already remitted back to the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence and thereafter, neither the OP nor its counsel appeared in this Forum and ultimately, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. It is admitted case of the complainant that he placed an order for purchase of two products i.e. one men's leather formal shoes of STOP Brand for consideration of Rs.999/- and other was kittens baby shoes of Rs.250/-. The order was placed on 28.01.2018 bearing order No.123556400 and also make the payment of the said products through Net Banking and out of two products, one is admittedly delivered to the complainant i.e. baby shoes, but the other order in regard to men's leather formal shoes was admittedly canceled by the OP on the pretext that the said product is out of stock and accordingly, the complainant demanded the price of the said product or sought direction to the OP to deliver the said product and further also asked for compensation and litigation expenses.
7. To the contrary, the OP filed reply and took a plea that the price of the said product has been already reverted back to the complainant, though the OPs No.1 and 2 later on proceeded against exparte, but its written reply has been placed on the file, which can be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant case, in the said written reply, the OPs No.1 and 2 took a plea that the terms and conditions relating to online purchase are mentioned clearly in “Frequently Asked Questions”, in our online portal, admittedly the complainant has placed an order through online portal of the OP and wherein the condition has been also mentioned, but for the best known reason, the complainant has concealed that condition from this Forum, rather it is the duty of the complainant to bring on the file the terms and conditions whatsoever incorporated on portal of the OP, as per version of the OP, the terms and conditions in the portal is that if any product is gone out of stock, that can be canceled even if the same is already confirmed and its price will be reverted back to the customers and in view of that terms and conditions, the OP has alleged in the written reply that the price has been already reverted back to the complainant, but this factum has not been controverted by the complainant by filing replication or by taking a plea in the affidavit, which filed at the time of leading evidence.
8. We find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, simply not providing any product, which had gone out of stock, does not cover under the definition of 'Deficiency in Service' and thus, the complainant is not entitled for compensation or litigation expenses, whereas the complainant has already got refunded the price of the said product and accordingly, we came to conclusion that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
15.05.2019 Member President
