Delivery Of Different Watch Instead Of Tommy Hilfiger, Udupi District Commission Holds Myntra And Titan Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi (Karnataka) bench of Sunil T. Masaraddi (President) and Sujata B. Koralli (Member) held Myntra and Titan liable for deficiency in services for delivering a different branded watch instead of Tommy Hilfiger and subsequently failing to refund the money. Brief Facts: The Complainant ordered a Tommy Hilfiger Men Black Dial and...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi (Karnataka) bench of Sunil T. Masaraddi (President) and Sujata B. Koralli (Member) held Myntra and Titan liable for deficiency in services for delivering a different branded watch instead of Tommy Hilfiger and subsequently failing to refund the money.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant ordered a Tommy Hilfiger Men Black Dial and Black Straps Analogue Watch valued at Rs.15,495/- from Myntra but received a different watch branded "Abbas" upon delivery. The Complainant argued that upon discovering the wrong product, he immediately contacted Myntra's customer support to initiate a return and refund process. Initially, Myntra acknowledged the return request but later claimed the return was on hold due to alleged quality issues. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi, Karnataka (“District Commission”) against Myntra and TITAN Company Ltd. (parent company of Tommy Hilfiger India).
In response, Myntra argued that it operates solely as an intermediary in the transaction which absolves it of liability under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It maintained that the complaint suppressed material facts and lacked evidence of negligence or deficiency of service as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It contended that Myntra was not responsible for the quality or delivery issues related to products sold by third-party sellers on its platform.
Titan didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission referred to Clause 12 of Myntra's Terms of Use which confirmed the platform's acknowledgment of liability for products purchased through its service. Despite assertions by Myntra that the purchase amount was refunded, the District Commission held that inconsistencies arose in its responses regarding conditions for issuing refunds. The District Commission referred to the decision of the Chandigarh State Commission in Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. vs. Monika Thakur and held that the platform must verify that the correct products are delivered to consumers.
The District Commission held that both parties, Myntra and Titan, were jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service. Therefore, the District Commission directed them to refund Rs. 15,495/- with 10% annual interest to the Complainant. Additionally, recognizing the mental agony caused to the Complainant due to the erroneous delivery and subsequent dispute, the District Commission directed them to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental distress and another Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation costs.
Case Title: Mr. Agam R vs M/s. Myntra Designs Private Limited
Case Number: 114/2023
Decided on: 31/05/2024