Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1030/2014

SANJEEV SETH - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIA TIMES - Opp.Party(s)

06 Dec 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.      1030/ 2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                 12/11/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                06/12/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         07/12/2017  

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mr. Sanjeev Seth, adult   

s/o- Sh Surendra Kishan

R/o  H-65/4A, Gali no. 17, Block H 

Jagat Puri, Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110051 ……………….…………..….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s India Times Shopping         

10, Top Floor, Darya Ganj    

New Delhi 110002

 

2 M/s Natraj Traders  

B 172, 1^st Floor, Street No. 3,

Gazipur Village, Delhi 110096………………………………………….….……Opponents

 

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                   

Complainant booked one pair of men’s shoes on through online on 23/09/2014 and were delivered on 29/09/2014 through OP1 / India Times Shopping portal for a sum of Rs 698/- against order no. 3003546908 (Ex CW1/1 and CW1/2), but complainant did not get the actual shoes which he ordered. He made number of calls on customer care, but did not get any reply so seeing the illegal act of OP1 as defective shoes were supplied, filed this complaint and claimed cost of the shoes Rs 698/- with compensation for mental harassment a sum of Rs 10,000/- and litigation charges Rs 3,000/-.   

After notices, OP 1 submitted written statement and stated that OP1 were doing business under the trade name of ‘Indiatimes Shopping’ operating website (Ex OPR/1) through their official website www.shopping.indiatimes .com (in short website) as a online portal. OP1 being an intermediary and provide a medium to various sellers all over India. It was admitted that the sellers were the different identity, so, they do not sell any product in the market. 

 

It was stated that sellers directly raise invoices to the customers for their selected products of their choice and seller bears all the commercial risk and the said warranty of the product was extended by the seller or the manufacturer. More so, OP2 had agreement with OP1 for supply of ordered goods, but OP1 had no role in selling the goods. It was stated that a detailed terms and conditions were enclosed with every goods ordered and refund policy (Ex Anne. R/ 4 & 5).  

It was submitted that OP2 had supplied the shoes and had also promised to replace the shoes, but complainant did not approach OP2 and denied to get replaced his shoes rather threatened to proceed legal action against OP1. Hence it was prayed that OP1 had no deficiency or any illegal act, so this complaint may be dismissed.  

 

Complainant submitted his rejoinder where he stated that all his facts of complaints were correct and true, but OP1 had intentionally avoided replacing shoes. Complainant also submitted evidence by way of affidavit where he reaffirmed on oath that all the evidences were correct as CW1/1 and CW1/2.

OP1 also submitted their evidence on affidavit through Mr Saurabh Malik, AR with OP1, who deposed on oath that OP1 only provides platform to vendors to display and sell their products through website only and not a seller of any products.  It was stated that whosoever book any product, OP1 always direct and instruct customers to go through terms and conditions of the products and never charge any amount from customers. OP2 did not appear despite of serving notices so OP2 was proceeded exparte.

Even complainant did not put his appearance on the date of arguments, though notices were sent to both parties on date of arguments (06/12/2017), but complainant did not put his appearance. OP1 counsel argued the matter, heard and file was perused and order was reserved.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was noticed that complainant had booked shoes through OP1 online portal the said order/shoes were purchased by complainant after getting satisfied of all the terms and conditions of the said shoes. The annexures on record as evidence submitted by the complainant and OP had same features as in Ex OPW1/1 and 2. There was no evidence on record to prove that the said shoes were defective or were of different size. Hence, complainant could not prove any deficiency of OP1. Also, complainant has not shown damages he suffered in ordered shoes and different size of shoes were sent by OP 1. There was no evidence on record by which it could be presumed that defective shoes were supplied by OP1 and did not convey for replacement from OP2.

 

So, we do not find any deficiency in the services of OPs and merit in this complaint, thus deserves to be dismissed, so dismissed without cost.

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR. 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari,  Member                                                                        Mrs Harpreet Kaur,  Member

 

                                                      

                                                       Sukhdev Singh, President