Delhi

East Delhi

CC/991/2013

RITU GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

JASPER INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

04 Sep 2018

ORDER

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

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

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.         991/2013

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                 13/11/2013

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                04/09/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         07/09/2018 

In matter of

Mrs. Ritu Gupta, adult, W/o- Mr Vikram Gupta

B-306, Millenium Plaza  

Sec. 27, Gurgaon, 122001………………………….…………..………...Complainant

                                                                     Vs

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

Through Manish Kumar, Secretary

I-26, Gali no. 3, Lalita Park,

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092

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

246, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase 3,   

Okhla New Delhi 110020

3-SAMAY

Through its Manager

875, FF, PN Writer Building

Main Road, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi 110084…………….….……Opponents

Complainant’s Advocate             Hemant Uppal

Opponent’s Advocate                 Mr Udai Seth

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 purchased four wall clocks through online order from OP1/ Snapdeal portal vide order no. 1332836792 dated 15/10/2013 for a sum of Rs 1280/-against cost of each clock Rs 320/-which were delivered after discount for Rs 1152/-through OP3/SAMAY where each clock cost was Rs 288/-vide invoice no. 9392, 9393, 9294 and 9395 on 18/10/2013 (Ex CW1/2,3,4&5).  

After opening the packet of wall clock, the cost was printed Rs 225/-on each box (Ex CW1/6,7,8 &9), so complainant called customer care of OP1 & OP2 regarding overcharging, but it was replied that TAT( turn around time) of 7 days was over, so OP1 were helpless as per their online /third party terms and conditions. Complainant felt cheated for the unfair trade act and misleading advertisements of OP 1&2, so filed this complaint and claimed refund of Rs 900/- with compensation of Rs 100,000/- and Rs 25,000/-as litigation charges. 

After notices, OP1/Jasper 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 an online portal mainly dealing in electronic commerce. 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. It was submitted that OP1 had protection under section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act 2000 (in short IT Act) and Section 79 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). The said wall clocks were 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. So complaint may be dismissed.

Complainant submitted her evidence by way of affidavit, but did not submit rejoinder. She re- affirmed that her facts were correct as per her complaint. She alleged that OP3 had charged excess amount then printed on the boxes of wall clock packing. It was submitted that OP3 charged Rs 320/- per clock instead of Rs 225/- hence adopted unfair trade practice from complainant.

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 4 invoices (Ex CW1/1,2,3 &4) show OP3 has charged Central Sales IARC Pvt Ltd, B-306, Millennium Plaza, Sec. 27, Nr. Max Hospital, Gurgaon, Haryana and four Ajanta Blue Rectangular Wall Clocks and has given 100% money back guarantee and 7 days return policy.

By seeing reply dated 08/11/2013 stating expiry of 7 days TAT as complainant had not sent any email for cancellation of order in 7 days from the receiving of order as no email record from complainant was on record whereas order was received on 18/10/2013. It was also seen that complainant had not submitted proper ID of her residential proof, but PAN card photocopy was submitted where no residential address written. Complainant had not submitted any other evidence to counter OP email reply dated 08/11/2013. That being so, this complaint deserves dismissal so dismissed without any order to 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