1.         The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Lenovo Vibe P1 Turbo (32 GB Gray) handset, IMEI No.867363027945462 from OP.1 for Rs.17, 234/- vide Invoice No.S22B22/16-17/9302 dt.29.7.2016 and after 2 months of its use, the handset started giving defect like set hang, Auto Switch off and net facility did not work at all besides set heat problem while in use.It is submitted that as per advice of OP.1, the complainant contacted the ASC at Bhubaneswar and Visakhapatnam but they advised to contact Ops. 1 & 3 for a new handset as the problem would not be solved after repairing.On contact to Ops 1 & 3, they insisted to contact the ASC and in the above circumstances, the handset is lying unused. Thus alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.17, 234/- towards cost of the handset with interest from 29.7.2016 and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.       The registered notice issued against OP.1 returned unserved with postal remark “No such Company”.The complainant has added OP.1 as a party to this case as per the same address given in the retail invoice issued by OP.1.

3.      The OP.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant contending that Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd. is an online market place platform under brand name “Snapdeal” which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sales transactions between the independent 3^rd party seller and customers.The seller directly raises invoice to the final customers for the products sold and bears all commercial risks and after sale service is provided either by the manufacturer or by the seller of the products and the OP.2 does not give or provide any assurance to the buyers of the products.It is contended that for the defects in the goods, the seller is liable for the consequences and not the owner of the shopping mall and the complaint is liable to be dismissed due to misjoinder of the parties as the OP.2 is not a necessary party to this case.It is further contended that the OP.2 has no role in providing warranty of the product sold and no deficiency in service has been committed and hence the complainant is not the consumer of OP.2.It is further submitted that an intermediary who falls under the ambit of Sec.2 (1)(w) of IT Act, 2000 is exempted u/s.79 of the same Act from any liability arising from any transaction entered into by 3^rd party through an intermediary’s website.With these and other contentions, denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.     The OP.3 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant contending that there is no problem in the handset as the OP always aims at customer’s satisfaction as its priority.It is contended that after validating with the ASC, it could know that there was no service call logged as alleged by the complainant and the OP has neither privy to it nor having any knowledge thereof.Denying any manufacturing defect in the set, the OP contended that the complainant has never visited ASC with the defects in his set but made false allegations against the OP.Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

5.      The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

6.       In this case, the complainant has filed copy of invoice from which it was ascertained that he has purchased the product from OP.1 through OP.2, the manufacturer being the OP.3.As such the purchase of set by the complainant is proved.It is seen that the OP.1 has granted invoice dt.29.7.2016 clearly mentioning its address on it but when the registered notice was sent to OP.1 as per same address, the notice return with postal remark which fact is very much amazing and amounts to unfair trade practice.

7.     The case of the complainant is that he purchased Lenovo Vibe-P1 Turbo set which is manufactured by OP.3 from OP.1 on 29.7.2016 but after 2 months of use the handset started giving defects like hang, auto switch off, no networking and set heat problems.As per advice of OP.1, he has contacted ASC at Bhubaneswar and VSP but they advised the complainant to contact Ops 1 & 3 for replacement of the product as the defects are not curable.Further on contact to Ops 1 & 3, they advised only to contact the ASC for repairs and thus the handset is lying unused.

8.     In this case the OP.3, the manufacturer has sold the product to the complainant through OP.1 and the OP.2 being the dispatcher of the product.The OP.1 has issued invoice and the OP.2 has forwarded a mail ensuring dispatch of the product.These two documents do not contain any place of ASC of the product.Not a single paper has been issued by the manufacturer and hence there is no scope for the complainant to know the location of nearest ASC of the product for after sale service.However, the complainant on its own effort has contacted the ASCs at Bhubaneswar and VSP.The said ASCs have not received the set after a thorough look.This submission of the complainant is supported by affidavit dt.01.11.16.The OP.3 has simply denied the allegations that the complainant has never approached any service center.

9.     The OP.3 is selling its products to the customers of different places without giving any facility of after sale service with a short distance.The OP.3 also fails to intimate the locations of the service centre.In the present case in hand, if the ASC of the OP does not receive the set, what a poor customer can do.At best the customer has one option left i.e. to intimate the fact of non receipt of defective set by ASC to the seller and manufacturer.It appears that there is no control of manufacturer over the ASCs who are playing some times mischief with the customers on approach.In this case, the allegation of the complainant regarding non receipt of handset by the ASC at Bhubaneswar and VSP cannot be disbelieved as no more evidence against the ASCs can be adduced by the customer except an affidavit.Further a customer cannot approach again and again to the ASC at a distance of more than 500 Kms.

10.    In the above circumstances, we firmly believe the allegations of the complainant that the handset was suffering multiple defects within the warranty period and the ASCs did not agree to rectify the defects.After filing of this case also, the OP.3 did not take any step to satisfy the complainant by taking necessary steps.It is very much clear from the facts of this case that by selling its product, the OP.3 enjoyed the blended butter but failed to undertake after sale service within warranty period.

11.     The OP.3 stated that it contacted with the ASCs and could know that the complainant has never logged complaint.This contention of the OP.3 is not supported by any affidavit of independent nature that it had contacted the ASCs in this case.No name and location of ASCs contacted have been mentioned in the counter. No affidavit is filed along with the counter also and hence we do not believe those contentions.

12.       We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OP.2 as intermediary.It has sent the product to the complainant and the complainant has received the product intact and hence the duty of OP.2 is over then and there.

13.      In view of the above discussions, we find that the product of OP.3 was defective of serious nature and as such the ASCs did not prefer to repair the same.Non repair of the set within warranty period also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.3.Hence the complainant is entitled to get Rs.17, 234/- towards cost of the handset with interest.For such inaction of the OP.3, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and he is entitled for some compensation and costs.Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel, a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

14.     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.3 is directed to refund Rs.17, 234/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 29.7.2016 and to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)