Delhi

East Delhi

CC/28/2016

MANOJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

JASPER INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

27 Oct 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.          28 /2016

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                 01/02/2016

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                27/10 /2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         30/10 /2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Manoj, adult   

s/o- Sh Ganga Ram

R/o  D-54, JJ Camp, Block D, New Sanjay Colony  

Vishwas Nagar, Delhi 110032 ………………………………….…………..….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s Jasper India Pvt. Ltd. (Snapdeal.com)        

246, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase 3,   

Okhla New Delhi 110020

 

2Savex Technologies Pvt Ltd.

A25, GF, Front Tower

Khasara no. – 206/207, Umber Grinding mills

Kukas, Amber, Jaipur–Delhi Highways

Jaipur, Rajasthan,302028………………………………………………….….……Opponents

 

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                   

Complainant purchased one Samsung Galaxy Grand Max mobile through online from OP1/ Snapdeal portal having 4G enabled for a sum of Rs 12900/- vide invoice no. LPSB1516108895 on 23 June 2015 (Ex CW1/1) along with specifications(Ex CW1/2 A,B &C). After opening the packet of mobile, it was 3G enabled, so complainant called customer care of OP1 who told to contact OP2 the dealer of the mobile, but could not contact, so sent email on 01/10/2015 to OP1 and on 16/10/2015 to OP2 (Ex CW1/3).

When no response, felt cheated for the unfair trade act and misleading advertisements of OP2, so filed this complaint and claimed refund of Rs 12,900/-with 24 % per annum and compensation of Rs 80,000/- and litigation charges.  

After notices, OP 1 submitted written statement and stated that OP1 were doing business under the trade name of Snapdeal through their official website www.snapdeal.com (in short website) as a online portal mainly dealing in electronic commerce. OP1 being an intermediary 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.

it was submitted that OP1 had protection under section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act 2000 (in short IT Act) and Section 81 of the IT Act.  The Snapdeal.com owned and operated by M/s Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd and acts as intermediary and provide platform to third party sellers for general public in India. OP1 doesn’t sell any product of its own, but manages online market under clause 1.1 of Terms of Sale. The clause 3.3 of Terms of Sale covers warranty clause of the products which were mentioned on all their products (Ex OPW1/1/0.

The said mobile was sold by OP2/seller and the manufacturer was not made the party by the complainant. So it was stated that OP1 had no deficiency in their services nor were the beneficiary of any consideration whatsoever were paid by the customers/complainant. Here in this case, manufacturer was not made the necessary party. So complaint may be dismissed.

Complainant submitted his evidence by way of affidavit, but did not submit rejoinder. He re- affirmed that his facts were correct as per his complaint. He alleged that defective goods were sold by OP1, hence OPs were responsible for refund. He had further stated that his mobile was under warranty when complaint was lodged with OP1 and 2.   

OP also submitted their evidence on affidavit through their AR Shine Joy, who deposed on oath that their company products were quality tested and had one year standard warranty for all products and never sold defective goods for customer. Hence, labeled allegations were without any evidence, so present complaint be dismissed.

 

Arguments were heard from both the counsels and after perusal of file, order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was noticed that the said mobile had been purchased by complainant after getting satisfied of all the terms and conditions of the said mobile. The annexures on record as evidence submitted by the complainant and OP were had same features as in Ex OPW1/4 page 22where the price of the said mobile had been shown a sum of RS 16,800/- against original cost Rs 18000/-. Under the heading ‘Connectivity’, the said mobile had GSM, 3G/WCDMA, 2G with other specifications. There was no evidence on record to prove that the said mobile was 4G enabled. It was GSM mobile and on WCDMA, it would be 3G. Hence, complainant could not prove any deficiency of Op in sending 3G mobile instead of 4G. Also, complainant has not shown damage he suffered in purchasing 3 G mobile instead of 4G and also there was no evidence from third party/ service centre from where it could be presumed to be a different mobile than complainant had booked through online.  

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                                                                      Sukhdev Singh, President