Jaina Marketing V/S Rahul - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Sirsa

CC/15/111

Rahul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jaina Marketing - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant

11 Feb 2016

ORDER

Heading1

Heading2

Complaint Case No. CC/15/111

1. Rahul

615 housing bord colony Barnala road Sirsa

Sirsa

Haryana

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Jaina Marketing

D 170 okhla Indu. phase I New Delhi

Delhi

Haryana

............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MRS. Gurpreet Kaur Gill PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. Rajiv Mehta MEMBER

For the Complainant:	Complainant, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:	Punit, Advocate

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

Consumer Complaint no. 111 of 2015

Date of Institution : 9.6.2015

Date of Decision : 11.2.2016

Rahul son of Sh.Satnam Singh, r/o House No.615, New Housing Board Colony, Barnala Road, Sirsa, tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.

……Complainant.

Versus.

Jaina Marketing & Associates, D-170, Okhla Industrial Phase-1, New Delhi 110020.
Snap Deal, Head Office-New Delhi, Jasper Infotech Pvt., Ltd., 246 Ist floor, Phase-III, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi 110020.
Service Zone Bishnoi Market, Shop no.89, Sirsa.

...…Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL……PRESIDING MEMBER.

SHRI RAJIV MEHTA ……… MEMBER.

Present: Complainant in person.

Opposite parties no.1&3 exparte.

Sh.Punit Manchanda,, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

ORDER

In brief, complainant purchased a mobile Make Karban Titanium Octane Plus White on Cash payment of Rs.9999/- through Home delivery and the official of Op no.2 received the cash payment. But after two months of its purchase, i.e. during the warranty period, the mobile set switched off. The complainant contacted opposite parties and they sent him to Carbon Care Centre, Bishnoi Market Sirsa, where the officials told that mobile has been powered off and its repair is not possible there and it has to be sent to the company. They demanded 15 days time for repair of mobile. Thereafter, the complainant visited the said Care centre several times, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Lastly, the opposite parties sent a lower quality mobile to the Care Centre. Hence, this complaint for compensation for harassment, humiliation and litigation expenses etc.

2. On notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 3, therefore, they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 28.8.2015. Only, opposite party no.2 contested the case by filing reply. In its reply, opposite party no.2 has pleaded that opposite party no.2 is neither a ‘trader’ nor a ‘service provider’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has not charged any amount from the complainant for using the services available on Snapdeal.com. It is further submitted that website

3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2-cash on delivery receipt and retail invoice; Ex.C3-job sheet; Ex.C4 to Ex.C9-complaint-cum-notice of different dates, whereas the Op no.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPW1/A-affidavit of Mr.Shine Joy, Deputy Legal counsel; Ex.OPW1/1-authorization letter and Ex.OPW1/2-terms of sale-snapdeal.com

4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

5. It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a Karban Titanium Octane Plus White mobile set for sum of Rs.9999/- through Snap deal Home delivery. The official of Op no.2 received the cash payment. During the warranty period after two months of its purchase, the mobile set automatically switched off. The complainant contacted opposite party no.3-service centre of the company for repair of the mobile set, they stated that repair of the mobile set is not possible, so it has to be sent to the company. After 15 days, the complainant visited the said Care centre, but it did not repair the mobile set and hand over other second hand mobile set to the complainant. Complainant sent representation and reminder to the company vide Ex.C4, Ex.C5 and Ex.C8, but no avail. The complainant denied to receive that second hand mobile set but the original set has not been returned to the complainant till date. Opposite parties no.1 and 3 have been duly proceeded exparte vide order of this Forum dated 28.8.2015. Opposite party no.2 has filed its reply and admitted the Home delivery and receiving of cash payment though snapdeal.com. In its reply, opposite party no.2 has pleaded that Op no.2 is neither a ‘trader’ nor a ‘service provider’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has not charged any amount from the complainant for using the services available on Snapdeal.com. It is further submitted that website

6. For the reasons and findings recorded above, we accept the present complaint with cost of Rs.1000/- and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile hand set with new one to the complainant within one month, otherwise to refund Rs.9999/- price of the mobile with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 9.6.2015, till payment. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for compliance of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,

Dated: 11.2.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Sirsa.