STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.905 of 2016

Date of institution : 02.12.2016.

Date of reserved : 22.11.2017.

Date of decision : 06.12.2017.

One97 Communication Limited (PAYTM) (through Managing

Director and Authorized Representative), B-121, Sector -5, Noida-

201301 (U.P.).

….Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

Versus

1. Deepak Garg, son of Sh.Charan Pal Garg, r/o Gaushala

Road, Sangrur (Pb.).

….Respondent No.1/Complainant.

2. Infinity Infomatic (P) Ltd. through its Managing Directors, 20,

Dobson Road, Shri Niketan Building, 5^th Floor, Howrah, West

Bengal-711101.

3. Hemant Kumar Sethi, Director (Infinity Infomatics), C-401,

Sarswati Apartments, Plot No.97, I.P.Extension, Patparganj,

Delhi – 110092.

4. Jayant Jain Sethi, Director (Infinity Infomatics) Room

No.345, Plot No.25/31 Lalmani CHSL, Dr.A.M.Road,

Bhuleshwar, Mumbai-400002.

...Respondents/OPs.

First Appeal against the order dated

21.10.2016 of the District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President

Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member

Present:-

For the appellant

: Sh. Vivek Sethi, Advocate

For respondent No.1

: Ex-parte

For respondent No.2

: Service dispensed with vide order

dated 07.07.2017.

First Appeal No.905 of 2016

MRS. KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER

The

instant

appeal

has

been

preferred

by

the

appellant/opposite party No.1 to challenge therein order dated

21.10.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Forum, Sangrur (for short, “the District Forum”), whereby the

complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant, under Section 12

of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), was

allowed and OPs were directed to provide the apple iphone 6 (16-

GB space Grey) to the complainant at `60/- only and further to pay

a consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses to

the tune of `2,000/- only.

2.

It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the

parties will be referred to, as have been arrayed before the District

Forum.

Facts of the Complaint

3.

The factual matrix of the matter in brief, as averred in

the complaint, are that the complainant placed an order of Apple

iphone 6 (16 GB –space Grey) with the OP No.1 on 09.03.2016

vide order number 1590099476 under the offer of the OP No.1.

The cost of the mobile set in question was `52,000/- and there

was a discount of `51,965/- on the same, as such, he was to pay

an amount of `35/- only with other charges in this way, he had to

pay an amount of `60/- only. It was further stated that the OP No.1

assured that they will dispatch the product on 9.3.2016 and the

First Appeal No.905 of 2016

same would be delivered within 8/9 days. It was further stated that

the said amount was paid by him from the account of his cousin

brother Rakesh son of Tarsem Chand bearing account number

30764486101. It was further stated that he received an email

dated 10.09.2016 from the OP No.1 vide which his order was

cancelled. He requested OP No.1 number of times to deliver the

product, but all in vain. He also alleged that OP No.2 as the

merchant was equally liable for the negligence and unfair trade

practice. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade

practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant prayed that the

OPs be directed to provide the mobile phone in question i.e. Apple

iphone 6 (16 GB) to him; to pay `50,000/- on account of mental

agony and physical harassment; and to pay `5,500/- as litigation

expenses.

Defence of the Opposite Parties

4.

Upon notice, OP No.1 filed its written reply and stated

that the OP No.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 No.1 was neither

responsible for the products that were listed on the website nor

Paytm in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document