BENGALURU: Dragging Paytm to the Consumer Commission for delivering a used camera instead of a new one, and failing to replace it or refund money, a city resident succeeded in getting compensation without the help of legal experts.
She filed a complaint against Paytm Mall, an online portal of Paytm. Allowing partly the complaint filed by Asha Jangamareddy (38) from Vijayanagar, the Bengaluru Urban Second Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed Paytm to refund Rs 5,149 towards cost of the camera, with interest of 10% per annum, Rs 10,000 towards compensation and Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses.
Noting that Paytm indulged in unfair trade practice and deficiency in rendering service, the Commission comprising president M Shobha, members B Devaraju and V Anuradha passed the order against Paytm for causing mental trauma and agony to the complainant by supplying a damaged camera, and defrauding her by failing to refund money, though she waited for several weeks, and even corresponded via e-mail, messages and phone calls.
The Commission noted that Paytm is liable for deficiency in service in the matter of return of the product or refund. Though Paytm is not a manufacturer, it is a facilitator under the online platform which owns and operates the website. The complainant had trusted Paytm, the Commission observed.
Asha had purchased the camera in July 2020, placing its trust in Paytm Mall. When it was delivered, she was shocked to notice that it was old and used, with multiple scratches on the screen and a rusted USB cable. Immediately, she requested Paytm to initiate a return for the order but it was refused, with the claim that the camera was perfect and new. It also fraudulently closed all complaints without resolving them, she alleged.
Denying the allegations, Paytm claimed that it is not responsible to resolve grievances of the complainant, as it is a company which facilitates sellers to display their good. It also claimed that it had arranged pick up of the camera from the complainant by the merchant, but the door of the complainant was locked. However, the complainant denied that her door was locked.