BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR
C.C. No.337 of 2014 Date of Institution: 11.9.2014
Date of Decision: 19.1.2015
Rahul Kakkar son of Arun Kakkar, resident of Backside Gurudwara Baba Ram Lal, Gali Kabra Wali, New Azad Nagar, Ferozepur City.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Jasper Infotech (P) Limited (snapdeal.com) 246, Phase-3, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-20, through MD/CEO/Manager.
2. Blue Dart Courier Limited, Branch Office at Basti Tenkan Wali, Ferozepur City (now at Baba Naamdev Chowk), through its Branch Manager.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Rahul Kakkar, complainant
For opposite party No.1 : Sh. Randeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate
For opposite party No.2 : Sh. Kunal Behal, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased lot of articles from opposite party No.1 by placing the orders
C.C. No.337 of 2014 \\2//
online. On 23.7.2014, when the complainant visited the website snapdeal.com. by using internet connection at his residence, then an advertisement in the shape of windows pop-up in the website of snapdeal.com. wherein Panasonic cordless phone was being advertised with an offer price of 164/- after discounts. Being allured by the said offer, the complainant ordered for said Panasonic cordless phone bearing model No.KXTG-3611-SXB vide order No.2483547738 by opting mode of payment as cash on delivery. Further it has been pleaded that on 28.7.2014, the complainant received a call from Blue Dart Courier i.e. opposite party No.2 that one parcel has came from snapdeal.com. and complainant visited the office of opposite party No.2. On reaching the office of opposite party No.2, the complainant saw that the packet/parcel supposed to have cordless phone was an empty packet with seal of snap deal tape. The complainant on seeing the same immediately called customer care of opposite party No.1 at customer care phone No.92126-92126 and lodged complaint No.8160308 and on the asking of customer care executive also mailed all the images of sealed packet to snap deal. Email i.e. help @ snapdeal.Com. Thereafter, when the complainant did not receive the ordered item till 31st of July, 2014, he sent grievance notice to opposite party No.1 through email. Further it has been pleaded that the complainant received one email from opposite party No.1 on 4.8.20104 that the
C.C. No.337 of 2014 \\3//
complainant’s order could not be completed due to certain issues at courier end and ordered amount would be refunded to the complainant. Thereafter, communication was received from opposite party No.1 that his order has been cancelled, to which the complainant replied that he has not cancelled his order, rather he wanted the product which he had ordered and thereafter in pursuant to the said mail, a parcel was delivered to the house of the complainant which on the face of it shows that it does not comprise any cordless phone. The complainant has not opened the said packet as it seems to be empty. Thereafter, the complainant many a times called the customer care of opposite party No.1 with the grievance that he has been cheated by the opposite parties, but without any result. The complainant also visited the office of opposite party No.2, but of no avail. Opposite party No.1 is blaming opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 is counter blaming opposite party No.1. But the fact remains that the complainant has been cheated by the opposite parties. Pleading unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to deliver the product ordered along with compensation of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their respective written replies to the complaint. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the product purchased by the complainant was
C.C. No.337 of 2014 \\4//
infact sold by M/s India Mall and not by opposite party No.1. In this case, M/s India Mall-the actual seller of the product had packaged and delivered the Panasonic Cordless Phone to the complainant without any intervention on the part of opposite party No.1. Further it has been pleaded that consequent to the complainant making a formal complaint with opposite party No.1, the customer care team of opposite party No.1 on numerous occasion had telephonically contacted the complainant and requested him to send the alleged unopened and empty packet delivered to him to opposite party No.1 so that the claims made by the complainant could be verified and complainant could be provided refund of the amount paid to purchase the said product. However, despite repeated requests, the complainant refused to return the product. In these circumstances, opposite party No.1 could neither provide refund to the complainant nor arrange replacement of the product from the actual seller of the product. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
2. In its written reply, opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that opposite party No.2 is running a courier company and as per the actual dealing, the complainant had booked one article with opposite party No.1. After sealing the same, opposite party No.1 had handed over the same with their own tape, seal and duly stamped to opposite party No.2 for its further
C.C. No.337 of 2014 \\5//
delivery to destination. Opposite party No.2, after receiving the same, handed over the same in the same condition as it was given by opposite party No.1 to the complainant and the same was duly accepted by the complainant and at that time, no objection was raised by the complainant. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/4 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1. Similarly, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/2 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
5. The grievance of the complainant is that being allured with the offer given on the website of opposite party No.1, he ordered for Panasonic Cordless phone bearing model No.KXTG-3611-SXB vide order No.2483547738, but opposite party No.1 has delivered an empty sealed pack with tape of snapdeal through opposite party No.2. The complainant has placed the said pack on the file as Ex.C-1, which has been duly sealed with the tape of snapdeal. Opposite party No.2 has pleaded that it has
C.C. No.337 of 2014 \\6//
delivered the pack in the same condition to the complainant as it was received from opposite party No.1. A careful perusal of this pack reveals that this is an empty pack and no article has been packed in it by opposite party No.1. It is also not the case of opposite party No.1 that the complainant or opposite party No.2 has tampered the seals of this pack and has resealed it with fictitious seals. Therefore, opposite party No.1 has committed gross unfair trade practice by doing so. Moreover, during the proceedings of the present complaint, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 had made a statement that a compromise has been effected between the complainant and opposite party No.1 and amount on which both parties have agreed is INR Rs.8000/-, which is to be paid by cheque or D.D. in favour of complainant Rahul Kakkar. Complainant also agreed with the statement made by the learned counsel for opposite party No.1 and statement of the complainant to this effect was also recorded separately. But thereafter, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 stated at bar that opposite party No.1 is not ready to pay the agreed amount to the complainant. The act and conduct of opposite party No.1 amounts to deficiency in service as well as gross unfair trade practice for which opposite party No.1 is liable to pay suitable compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. However, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved on the part of opposite party No.2.
C.C. No.337 of 2014 \\7//
6. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for adopting unfair trade practice as well as for rendering deficient services and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with by opposite party No.1 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, complaint against opposite party No.2 stands dismissed. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
19.1.2015 (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Gyan Singh) Member
