Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 36
Instituted on : 12.01.2021.
Decided on : 13.06.2024.
Himanshu Sangwan age about 30 years, son of Sh. Randhir Sangwan resident of H.No.16-0(Suraj Villa), Sector-2, Rohtak, Haryana 124001.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
TATA CLIQ Tata Unistore Limited, 1st Floor, Empire Plaza 2, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India-400083.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Mrs. Bhim Kaur Chillar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ravi Kant Kaushik, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are he purchased a Eureka Forbes vapomop 0.56L 1600W stick stream cleaner (Black) by placing an order no.id 109266290 from the opposite party on 25.08.2020, online by paying Rs.7,990/- via net banking. The complainant received the product on 27.08.2020 fully packed from the delivered person by courier and after leaving that deliveryman, when the complainant opened the product, he was surprised to see that the product was defective, damaged with multiple marks all over its body and old one and its water tank was also leaking. Thereafter complainant had initiated to return the product on the same day via transaction ID: 10005811582845. On 28th August, 2020, he could not attend the call of respondent so he send an email about it to the respondent but no response. Complainant again tried contacting customer care of Tatacliq on 31 August, 2020 on their phone no. 9029108282 but nothing happened. He again contacted them on 2nd September, 2020 about the issue and in reply they told that the complainant need to send the photos of damaged product to Tatacliq on their whatsapp no.+919920412074 and the complainant send them photos of damaged product on 2nd September, 2020. Complainant keep asking them about the return pickup but they keep delaying the process and refused to take back the product. The aforesaid act on the part of the respondent is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.7,990/- alongwith interest @18% per annum since the date of delivery i.e. 27.08.2020 till the actual realization alongwith Rs.11,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.8,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its written reply has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. The Tata UniStore Limited i.e. the respondent herein operates through its brand name "Tata CLIQ" & "Tata CLiQ Luxury", which are the online technology platform (Marketplace) and operated by the respondent which facilitates sellers to display their product listings and other data with intention to sell them online to the buyers who visit www.tatacliq.com/https:// luxury.tatacliq.com. It is further submitted that actual sale takes place between the seller and the buyer and that Tata CLiQ is classified as an "Intermediary" as per the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The respondent is not the manufacturer of the product in reference, and neither the respondent gave any service to the complainant except for facilitating online sale transaction between the seller and the buyer. The Hon'ble Commission may also note that the actual sale has taken place between the seller and the buyer and not between the respondent and the buyer i.e. complainant. Hence there is no cause for filing the complaint against the respondent. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and closed his evidence on 28.09.2021. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence on dated 16.05.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by both the parties as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case the grievance of the complainant is that he purchased a vapomop from the opposite party on 25.08.2020, online by paying Rs.7,990/- via net banking and received the product on 27.08.2020 but when he opened the product, the same was defective. So he initiated to return the product on the same day via transaction ID: 10005811582845 but the opposite parties refused to take back the product. On the other hand, opposite parties in para no.8 of preliminary objections of their reply has submitted that the opposite party offered coupons with value equivalent to the product amount to the complainant with one year validity and the said coupon will be open across all the products on website of the respondent. A communication to this effect was sent by the respondent to the complainant on 29.04.2021, 07.05.2021 and 29.07.2021. The complainant has not responded to the said emails of the respondent. In para no.9 it has been submitted that the complainant admittedly recognizes the liability of the manufacturer for the alleged defective product, including the seller who has sold the product to him but has made neither the manufacturer nor the seller who are the correct responding parties for the issue, if at all, faced by the complainant. After perusal of para no.8 of the written statement we came to the conclusion that respondent is ready to pay the amount but in the shape of coupon. As per our opinion when a product is defective from the very beginning i.e. from the time of receiving the same, in that situation amount should be refunded. The complainant repeatedly intimated the respondents regarding the defective product and he made emails and message so many times to the respondents. The respondent demanded photographs of the product and the same were supplied by the complainant well within time. Moreover as per para no.9 of the written statement of preliminary objections, it has been pleaded that the complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer and the seller as necessary parties in the present complaint. We have minutely perused the documents Ex.P1, delivery order and after perusal of the same, we have not found the address of the manufacturer or the seller upon this delivery order. Moreover the respondent has not disclosed the correct address of the manufacturer and seller in the written statement as well as in the affidavit. So the complainant has rightly impleaded only the respondent as a necessary party. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party are liable to refund the price of product to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.7990/-(Rupees seven thousand nine hundred and ninety only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.01.2021 till its realization and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.06.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
...............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………………………
Vijender Singh, Member.
