KARACHI: A consumer court on Satur­day imposed fines on a leading online retailer for providing a faulty product to a customer.

The judge of the consumer court (South) Mukesh Kumar Talreja directed Daraz.pk to pay Rs50,000 to the claimant/complainant in damages and compensation and also pay a fine of Rs15,000 in the government treasury account.

The court also asked the online retailer to replace the product in question with a good and useful one or alternatively return the amount (Rs7,795) paid against the purchase of the produce by the claimant and improve its services with regard to reasonable standards as per expectation of consumers.

It further ruled that if the defendant failed to comply with these orders within a period of one month, he or she will be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than one month which may extend to three years or with fine not less than Rs50,000 which may extend to Rs200,000 or with both.

The court in its order said it is a settled principle that when mental torture, agony and emotional stress was made out then the court has to grant damages as compensation and therefore, the court quantified the general damages for suffering mental agony and emotional distress as Rs50,000.

Dania Kashif filed a complaint against Daraz.pk through its managing director under Section 26 of the Sindh Consumer Protection Act, 2014 and contended that she ordered one Play-Doh DohVinci from the defendant’s website against the consideration of Rs7,795 which was delivered in a sealed parcel in November, but the product was dry and in bad condition and the price mentioned on the box was Rs6,730 instead of Rs7,795. The complainant further contended that she felt severe stress, agony and mental infliction and had filed a complaint through the defendant’s helpline, but they did not entertain it.

The defendant party denied the allegations and argued that the claim was filed beyond the statutory period of 30 days and the complainant ordered the product by agreeing to terms and conditions of the defendant which said that the defendant was not a party to the contract with either the seller or any other third party.

The defendant further contended that they, vide the purchase summary, charged an amount of Rs99, and its service was limited to delivery only and the remaining payment went to the account of the seller. It further submitted that the defendant replied via email and apprised the complainant about the procedure of refund and return, but the complainant did not avail it

Published in Dawn, December 1st, 2019