Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/25/2018

Daljit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishna Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mohit Verma

16 Mar 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.25 of 2018

                                                        Date of institution:  02.07.2018                         

                                                         Date of decision   :  16.03.2020

Daljit Kaur aged about 28 years, daughter of Mohan Singh, resident of House No.10, Ward No.9, Mohalla Gilzian, Bassi Pathana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Krishna Enterprises, Near Kartar Hotel, Kamathipura, Madhoganj, Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) Pin-474001 through its authorized signatory.
2. Snapdeal having its head office at 362-363, ASF Centre, Udyog Vihar Industrial Area Phase 4, Gurgaon-122016, Near Sector-18 through its Chairman/signatory.

 

…..Opposite parties

Complaint under Sections 11, 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986

Quorum

Sh. Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member    

                            

Present:     Sh. Mohit Verma, counsel for the complainant.

                 Opposite party No.1 exparte.

                 Sh. S.S.Bhagrana, counsel for opposite party No.2.

ORDER

By Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

                  The complaint was filed by the complainant on 02.07.2018 in this Forum and thereafter, vide order dated 11.03.2019, the application filed by the complainant for impleading Snapdeal as Opposite Party No.2 was allowed and the complainant filed the amended head note. In the present complaint the complainant pleaded that on 21.01.2018 vide order No.20931605241, suborder No.25756892180 she ordered imported L'Oreal Professional Liss Unlimited Spa & Streax Hair Serum & Liss Unlimited Shampoo 1150 ML from opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  The price of the said product was Rs.2500/- and there was discount of Rs.1601/- on the said product on 21.01.2018 and accordingly an amount of Rs.899/- was payable for the said product on delivery of the same at the shipping address of the complainant.  The said order of the complainant was packed by opposite parties as per invoice dated 22.01.2018 and the packing code is 726952408413 and snapdeal reference No.SLP1588351445. The opposite parties delivered the said product in sealed parcel packed in envelop of Snapdeal on 25.01.2018 at her residence and Rs.899/- was paid to the concerned delivery boy. It was not allowed by the concerned delivery boy to verify the fact that the order is complete or not. On opening the above said parcel, the complainant was shocked as the product was incomplete as Liss Unlimited Shampoo 1150 ML was missing in the same and she was further shocked that one product i.e.Streax Pro hair Serum was going to be expired after one month. It is mentioned on the said product that the same is to be used before 02/2018 and it was not possible to use the entire serum within one month.  Thereafter, the complainant immediately registered complaint through online application of Snapdeal vide Ticket ID No.45727501 and it was assured to the complainant to revert within next 48 hours but till date no response has been given to the complainant.  A legal notice was also served upon the OPs but all in vain. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of the product i.e. Rs.899/- and further, to pay Rs.80,000/- as damages including punitive damages to the complainant.

2.               Notice of the complaint was issued to the Opposite parties but Opposite Party No.1, chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte on 22.04.2019.

3.               The complaint is contested by Opposite Party No.2, who filed its written version to the complaint. In its written version Opposite Party No.2 stated that it operates online marketplace platform under the brand name/trademark "Snapdeal" through the website i.e. www.snapdeal.com. The Website is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sales transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. The Website enables independent third party sellers to list, advertise and offer to sell their products and services to the users of the Website. Once a user accepts the offer of sale of the products made by the third party seller, the seller is intimated electronically and is required to ensure that the products are made available and delivered in accordance to the delivery terms as set out by the sellers as part of the terms for sale displayed on the Website.  These sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by different persons/stakeholders. The sellers directly raise invoices to the final customers for the products sold and bear all commercial risks. The customers purchasing products from such sellers directly make the payments for their purchases either on a pre-paid basis or cash on delivery basis. The ultimate monetary benefits of such sale proceedings is the seller and not opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.2 further stated that the product was sold and advertised by Opposite party No.1 and not by Opposite party No.2 and even if the averments of the complainant is considered to be genuine & true, even then it is only the seller of the concerned product, who is to be held liable as the product was listed, sold & supplied by OP No.1 only and OP No.2 does not associate itself with any act of OP No.1. There is no deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it with costs.

4.               In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. CW1/A along with documents Ex. C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal, OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ankita Sharma Ex. OP2/1, certified copies of documents i.e. guidelines of FDA Ex. OP2/2, terms of Snapdeal company Ex. OP2/3, Press note Ex. OP2/4, Tax Invoice Ex. OP2/5, order of National Commission Mark-A and closed the evidence.

5.               We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.

6.               The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued on the lines of pleadings of complaint and requested to allow the complaint in favour of complainant, whereas Ld. counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 denied any kind of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.2 and requested to dismiss the complaint with costs.

7.                To prove his complaint, complainant has filed on record her duly attested affidavit as Ex. CW1/A wherein facts of complaint were stated on oath by her.  The complainant placed on record copy of complete order details Ex. C-1, which proves that the complainant placed online order on 21.01.2018, vide order ID No.20931605241 and total net price is Rs.899/-. Copy of suborder details Ex. C-2 proves that the price of the product is Rs.2500/-, discount is Rs.1601/- and after discount the net price of the product is Rs.899/-. Tax invoice dated 22.01.2018 is Ex. C-3, which proves that the complainant purchased the products in question from opposite party No.1 and Rs.899/- is to be paid by the complainant. Packing code of the products is Ex. C-4, which proves that the complainant paid Rs.899/- to the delivery boy of the OPs as status of the delivery is cash on delivery. The complainant placed on record copy of messages of return requests Ex. C-5 to C-7, which prove that on 25.01.2018 the complainant made requests for return of the products in question ordered on 21.01.2018 and the OPs duly registered the return request and the same was under process and it was stated by the OPs that they will revert the complainant within next 48 hours. Copy of legal notice placed on record by the complainant Ex. C-8 proves that the complainant served legal notice to OP No.1 as the OP failed to return the products in question.  Copy of postal receipt is Ex. C-9, which proves that the complainant served the legal notice through registered post on 01.03.2019.  On the other hand, to prove its version, Opposite Party No.2, placed on record duly attested affidavit of Ms. Ankita Sharma as Ex. OP2/1. Opposite Party No.2 also placed on record Press Note No.3 (2016 Series), issued by Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion(FC Section) which is Ex. OP2/2 and as per clause 2.3(viii) of the said Press Note it is clearly mentioned that " In marketplace model, any warrantee/guarantee of goods and services sold will be responsibility of the seller". Press Note No.2(2018 Series) is Ex. OP2/4, which also proves that any warrantee/guarantee of goods and services sold will be responsibility of the seller. The Ld. counsel for OP No.2 relied upon the Order of Hon'ble National Commission, Mark-A, in RP No.1422 of 2016 titled as "Vishal Kotecha Vs. Sanpdeal.com & Anr" decided on 11.08.2016, which was decided in favour of respondents i.e. Snapdeal.com & Anr. But the facts of the said case are different from the complaint in hand. In the case relied upon by OP No.2 the matter is related to late delivery of the product, whereas in the present complaint in hand the matter is regarding missing of one product and one product is going to expire within one month. Hence, the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission cannot be relied upon in the present complaint.

8.               In view of above said observations, it is proved that the complainant ordered imported L'oreal Professional Liss Unlimited Spa & Streax Hair Serum and Liss Unlimited Shampoo 1150 ML, as shown in Tax Invoice Ex.C-3, and the OPs delivered incomplete product as Liss Unlimited Shampoo 1150 ML is missing and Streax Pro Hair Serum is best before 02/2018 so, complainant has to use it within one month from the date of receiving the product. The OPs further failed to redress the grievance of the complainant as they failed to refund the amount to the complainant despite return requests which are Ex.C-5 to C-7. However, opposite party No.2 proves, vide Ex.OP2/2 & OP2/4, that in marketplace model, any warrantee/guarantee of goods and services sold will be responsibility of the seller i.e. Opposite Party No.1. Despite service Opposite Party No.1 did not join the proceedings at any stage and was proceeded against exparte.  It means that OP No.1 did not want to say anything in his defence. So, the complaint of the complainant remained unrebutted by OP No.1. Hence, the present complaint is allowed against Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite party No.1 is directed to refund the price of the product i.e. Rs.899/- to the complainant.  We also find that complainant is entitled to lumpsum amount of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the Opposite party No.1 on account of compensation and litigation charges. The complaint is allowed accordingly. All the pending miscellaneous applications are disposed off. Copies of the order be issued to the parties free of cost and thereafter file be consigned to the record room.

9.               The complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period of time as provided under 3^rd Proviso of Section 13 (3A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because the post of President of this Forum remained vacant since 16.09.2018 and the Post of Lady Member remained vacant since 02.03.2017 and the undersigned President is doing the additional duty since 03.06.2019 for performing quasi judicial duties only for two days per week.

Pronounced                                                                      

 Dated: 16.03.2020