By Sri. A.A. Vijayan, President.

                  The complaint is regarding  delivery of  different model of damaged articles.  The grievance of the complainant is as follows.

                 On 26-01-17, the complainant  ordered  a pair of Lee Cooper  Men’s Brown Leather Formal Shoes  from the respondent  through online purchase and paid total amount of Rs. 2799/-(Rupees Two thousand seven hundred and ninety nine only) the price of the shoe.  On 10-02-17   the product was delivered   by the 2^nd  respondent and complainant received the same.  When the box was opened he found  a totally different designed and coloured and damaged shoes  as the product which he ordered .  Because of the careless packing  the shoes   had been attacked by  fungus.  Though complainant contacted opposite parties  immediately, they informed the complainant that the articles should be returned.  Since complainant had to spend  Rs. 100/-(Rupees Hundred only) more  for sending  this articles back to the opposite parties, he did not send  back the same.  Thus complainant sought Rs. 2799/-(Rupees Two thousand seven hundred and ninety nine only) as the price of the shoe and Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only)as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony.

               Subsequently the opposite party No. 2 was impleaded as per the order in IA 536/17.

                 Opposite party No.2 did not appear in spite of receipt of notice and thus  opposite party No.2 was set  exparte .  

                Opposite party No.1 entered appearance and filed version  with following allegations. The complainant  does not fall  within the definition of “consumer” as defined in that the complainant has neither  purchased  any goods   from 1^st opposite

party nor paid any consideration for the same.  The goods are purchased by complainant  from the independent third party seller selling its products  on the Web site operated by this opposite party.  This respondent has provided only a technology plat-form  for the independent third party seller for selling their products.  This opposite party  is not a necessary party in this proceedings.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party  in this case.  The subject matter of the dispute  is Lee cooper  Men’s  brown Leather Formal Shoes.    The articles  received by the complainant is not the article  manufactured by this opposite party.  The actual seller is Y.S. Marchandise International Private Ltd and that Company is to be impleaded as a necessary party. This opposite party is not a necessary party and it is to be deleted from the party arrival.  This opposite party has no  any trading activity. There is no privity of contract  between this opposite party  and complainant. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint  because parties to the transaction have vested jurisdiction  on the courts at Delhi alone .  The relationship between this opposite party and sellers is on principal to principal basis  and they have no responsibility  for any action or inaction liabilities etc of the other.  The articles mentioned in the complaint  are neither manufactured or sold by this opposite party.  Thus the complaint against this opposite party is to be dismissed.     

           Complainant and opposite party No.1 filed affidavits and Ext.A1 to A4  are marked on the side of complainant. No documents are produced by opposite party No.1 .

Points arise for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service  on the part of opposite parities. 
2. Whether complainant is entitled to compensation as claimed .
3. Reliefs and cost. 

Point No.1 and 2

The claim of complainant is that he had placed an order for a pair of Lee cooper men’s brown leather formal shoes by online purchase and when the articles reached the complainanthe noticed thatthe shoes were in damaged conditionand were not in conformitytothe order placed. Opposite party No.1 contended that, they are not the actual sellersandtheir role is onlyin operating the websiteon whichthe independent sellerselling its product.Thus they say that they are not responsible for the deficiency of the articles purchased by the seller.According to 1^st opposite party the actual seller is opposite party No.2 and thus opposite party No.2 was impleaded subsequently by complainant.Opposite party No.1 cannot wash their handsby merely saying thatthey were providing a stage only for selling the articles.When an articles is sold by a seller on the web site ofthe 1^st opposite partythey also have to take responsibility .Opposite party No.2did not appearto get exonerated from the liabilities.From Ext. A2and A3 it is made clear that opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer of the shoes.So the prime responsibility for the defect of the shoesis that of opposite party No.2. It is clear from the nature of the sale thatthe articles were sold by opposite party No.2 with the assistance of opposite party No.1 .Soopposite party No.1is also found to be responsible forthe defect of the shoes.

Though the opposite party no.1placed many justifications in the version and the affidavit to get exonerated from the liability, they were not substantiated by cogentdocumentary evidence.From theclaim set up by rival partiesit is made clear thatthearticlespurchased by complainant were defective and they were notthe same model article as ordered by him and thusthe opposite parties are liable to pay the value of the articles and compensation.Points are decided accordingly.

                Point No.3

                On the basis  of the findings on the above points  we allow the complaint  as follows.

1.  The opposite party shall pay Rs. 2799/- (Rupees Two thousand Seven hundred and ninety nine only)  to complainant  as the price  of the shoes purchased by him.
2. Since  the articles  reached the hands of  complainant  was different model and defective  the opposite parties  shall pay Rs. 25000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation for the  mental agony suffered by him .
3. The complainant is also  entitled to Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

4. Though  the liability of opposite parties are joint and several, if the amount ordered is paid by op no.1  to complainant that can be realized by Opposite party No.1 from Opposite party No.2.
5.  If the amount ordered above, is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order they shall pay the same with  interest at the rate of 12% per annum  from that date till realization.

                    Dated  this 31^st  day  of January ,  2018.

  A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT

 R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER                                                         

  MINIMATHEW, MEMBER