M/S NAPTOL .COM V/S H.P. CHAUDHARY - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Panchkula

cc/1/2018

H.P. CHAUDHARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S NAPTOL .COM - Opp.Party(s)

J.S THAKUR

11 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA

Consumer Complaint No	:	01 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	01.01.2018
Date of Decision	:	11.01.2019

H.P.Chaudhary, IAS (Retd.) r/o Flat No.316 D, GHS-2, Shikhar Apartments, Sec 5, MDC, Panchkula. ….Complainant

Versus

M/s Naptol.com through M/s Chhavi International Pvt. Ltd. c/o DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., Khasra No.1226, Rajokri Village, New Delhi-110038.
M/s Chhavi International Pvt. Ltd. c/o DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., Khasra No.1226, Rajokri Village, New Delhi 110038.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: Mr.Satpal, President.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

For the Parties: Mr. J.S.Thakur, Advocate for complainant.

Mr. Rajesh Bura, Advocate for Op No.1.

OP No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 02.01.2019.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1. The brief facts of the present complaint are that on 04.08.2017, the complainant had placed an online order with OP No.1 on cash on delivery basis. The OP No.2 billed the 43 items on 04.08.2017 for Rs.2398/- and dispatched to the complainant vide bill No.847216s004654418. The complainant paid the amount of the bill and in return received a carton, said to be containing the ordered items. On opening of the carton, the complainant had found that the carton did not contain the ordered items in their entirety. Four items were found short (two containers + two lids). The complainant had ordered containers with white caps, as were shown in the Naptol advertisement on television, whereas purple coloured caps have been provided by the Ops. Some of the containers and lids bore scratch marks on them. The service spoons are smaller in size as compared to the ones that were shown in the advertisement. When the complainant tried to talk to the concerned customer care centre on no.08744963838, his numerous calls went unattended and even now the position is the same. The complainant apprised the Ops through his email dated 16.08.2017 followed by the reminder dated 27.08.2017 through email, but without any response from their side. On 12.09.2017, a legal notice was served on them by registered post, but that too remained unresponded. Through the said legal notice, the Ops were advised, in their own interest, to attend to the emails of the complainant and provide him the ordered items as detailed vide the emails of the complainant. As per the email dated 16.08.2017, sent by the complainant, the Ops were requested to exchange the incomplete and inappropriate order with the one, which is according to the specification provided by the complainant. Another email dated 27.08.2017 sent to the Ops also remains unresponded; this act and conduct of the Ops amount to deficiency in service on their part; hence, this complaint.

2. Upon notice, the OP No.1 has appeared and filed the written statement. It is stated that complainant had combined M/s Naaptol, DTDC courier company and M/s Chhavi International, all the parties into one. Both the Ops are different companies and play different roles as per the online business. The OP No.1 is a registered company under “The Companies Act 1956”. The OP No.1 i.e. Naaptol provides its services to sellers/vendors and enables various vendors/sellers to sell their products through the broadcasting medium of the company. The company has entered into various merchant agreements with the several vendors/sellers and brands and also features their products. That company M/s Naaptol advertises the products of different brands through the broadcasting mediums like website, television channels, print media etc. The details of the products, price, order procedure, mode of payment etc. can be accessed through company’s website rd party vendors/sellers”, so that each and every buyer/customer is/are aware for the same and concerned vendor/seller will be responsible for warranty and guarantee and it also includes- ‘Sale and After sale services’.

In preliminary objections the OP No.1 has stated that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that complainant had bought a product named “Kitchen Queen 43 Pcs Coloured Stainless Steel Storage Set” worth Rs.2398/- including delivery charges from the seller/vendor named “Chhavi International”. It is stated that the complainant had never contacted with the customer care team of the OP No.1 i.e. M/s Naaptol and have not registered the complaint against the said product. If OP No.1 would have received any complaint regarding the said product then definitely OP No.1 would have immediately provided the complainant with the appropriate remedy through the concerned seller. The complainant filed the present complaint before this Forum without intimating anything to the OP No.1. The complainant’s allegations are based on the basis of his own presumption and assumptions. The present case is filed to injure or harm the name, fame, interest and reputation of the OP No.1. It is denied that the OP No.1 has failed to provide services hired by the complainant as alleged because the grievance of the complaint in this respect if any can only be redressed through the concerned vendor/seller in case of any failure of service that unfortunately have happened or may have happened to the complainant then OP No.1 provides remedies through the concern seller/vender. Hence, no cause of grievance/action lies against the OP No.1. It is submitted that if there is any defect present in the products then OP No.1 provides three sorts of remedies in form of repair, exchange/replacement or refund through concerned seller. After analyzing the situation and completing the verification process accordingly they take necessary steps. The OP No.1 is not liable to pay any damage/ compensation/ interest/ cost etc. as claimed by the complainant because there is no mental strain or failure of services on the part of the OP No.1. The complainant has never contacted with OP No.1 on any number, never registered complaint with them, never sent email to them, never sent a legal notice to their address. Further stated that OP No.1 is an online shopping portal and it works as a link or chain between the buyer and seller/vendor and their work is limited only to broadcasting and publication of advertisement and also to prepare advertisement on the basis of information as given and provided by the vendor/seller and it also includes the collection of orders and then OP No.1 forwards those orders to the concerned seller/ vendor for the purposes of delivery and dispatch. The OP No.1 is also not involved in any sort of product manufacturing, supplying, buying, selling or any such other activities. The sole purpose of these advertisements is only to make aware the viewers about the product quality and description. It is submitted that during the advertisement it was made crystal clear to every customer with the detail and correct specification of the said product. The allegations of the complainant regarding non receipt of 4 items is vague in nature, the complainant has not mentioned which two containers (size small/big) were not received. The complainant even had not mentioned how many items he had received. The seller had dispatched and delivered a complete set of product. The complainant has never informed the OP No.1 regarding receipt of different coloured lids product instead of ordered coloured product. If they would have informed them then definitely the OP No.1 could have provided them with an appropriate remedy of replacement through the concerned seller/vendor. The complainant had never informed and never made any complaint to the OP No.1. Further, stated that the product shown in the advertisement and delivered to the complainant was one and the same only. The product which was delivered to the complainant was of standard quality and size. Further, submitted that the OP respects each and every buyer including the present complainant. There is a complete different department i.e. CRM (Customer Relation Management) to resolve the query of the complainant. The main aim and objective of the CRM Department is that each and every problem of the customer is being resolved at the earliest. Further stated that the number which had been mentioned in the present complaint does not belongs to the OP No.1. Further stated that complainant had placed an order of the said product by his own will and wish. The OP No.1 had never pressurized the complainant to buy this product. The OP No.1 is not involved in any sort of selling or manufacturing activities therefore OP No.1 does not fall under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OP No.1 is not involved directly/indirectly in any sort of trade practice, manufacturing, buying or selling activities. The complainant has no cause of action against the OP No.1 because the complainant had never called and registered his grievances with the OP No.1; thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3. Notice was issued to the OP No.2 through registered post on 05.01.2018 vide registered post No.CH021626648IN, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiring of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP No.2; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Op No.2, he was proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 02.01.2019.

4. The ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit Annexure RA along with documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant, learned counsel for the Op No.1 and gone through the record minutely and carefully.

6. After hearing the ld. counsel for both the parties, it transpired that the complainant placed an order No.38091820 on 04.08.2018 with the Ops for the supply of 43 pcs coloured Stainsell Steel storage set colour:white Sku:12241, amounting to Rs.2398/- as is evident from perusal of Annexure C-1, which is a bill relating to cash on delivery. The grievances of the complainant are that he received 39 items out of 43 items and that lid of supplied set was of purple colour as against the white colour. The complainant has also alleged scratches on the items of the utensils. As per version of the complainant, he tried to contact the Ops on customer care centre No.08744963838, but his numerous calls were unattended and thereafter emails dated 16.08.2017 and 27.08.2017 (Annexure C-5 and C-6) were sent to OP No.2 relating to his grievances. Finding no response, legal notice dated 12.09.2017 was sent to both the Ops and in this regard, the ld. counsel invited our attention towards receipt dated 14.09.2017 Annexure C-3 and C-4.

The OP No.1 has resisted the claim of the complainant stating that the matter was not brought into its notice within the period of 30 days. The ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has contended that the items were not supplied by the OP No.1 as it merely provides a platform for the use of purchaser and seller. The ld. counsel vehemently contended that the complainant did not bring the matter into the notice of OP No.1 pertaining to his grievances. The ld. counsel contended that the emails were sent by the complainant to OP No.2 and not to OP No.1 and the call number which has been allegedly used by the complainant does not belong to the OP No.1. The ld. counsel has also stated that the complainant never got the complaint registered with OP No.1 and if the complaint had been registered with OP No.1 then the same would have been sent to OP No.2 for the redressal of the grievances.

7. Having gone through the pleadings and documentary evidence available on record, we find no force and substance in the version of OP No.1. It is a categorical and specific version of the complainant as contained in Para No.8 of the complaint that he made several efforts to contact the Ops on customer care centre No.08744963838, but to no avail. In this regard, the OP No.1 has simply stated that the said number does not belong to them. However, OP No.1 has not bothered to find out as to whom the said number belongs. Further, we find emails dated 16.08.2017 and 27.08.2017 (Annexure C-5 and C-6) sent by the complainant to the Ops inviting their attention towards the deficiency in their services pertaining to the supply of Kitchen set. Finding no response, the complainant got sent the legal notice dated 12.09.2017 Annexure C-2 to both the Ops. In this regard, postal receipt dated 14.09.2017 Annexure C-3 and C-4 are available on the file. Even the said legal notice failed to evoke any response from the Ops thereby compelling the complainant to approach this Forum by way of filing the present complaint. It would not be out of place to mention here that the OP No.1 could have redressed the grievances of the complainant at the very initial stage of the present complaint i.e. after receipt of notice in the present complaint. But we find no efforts on the part of the OP No.1 asking the complainant to settle the case. The OP No.2, who has supplied the set of utensils containing 43 items to the complainant has preferred to remain absent from the proceedings of the present complaint and hence, we find no rebuttal on the part of OP No.2 of the version of the complainant, which is duly corroborated and substantiated by the affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C-1 to C-6. Thus, we find that the version of the complainant goes unrebutted and uncontroverted. The ld. counsel for the complainant has also shown the set of utensils to us to prove the deficiency on the part of the Ops with regard to the colour of the set. We have found the colour of the lids of the utensils as purple as against white which was ordered by the complainant. The factum of the colour of the kitchen set is clear from the description of the goods as made vide bill Annexure C-1 wherein we find the colour of the kitchen set as white. Thus, we have no doubt of any kind in any manner with regard to the deficiency of the Ops while supplying the set of utensils to the complainant.

Further, it is an admitted case of the OP No.1 that it is an online shopping portal and it works as a link or chain between the buyer and seller and the job of OP No.1 includes the collection of orders from the various consumers just like the present complainant and then forward those orders to the concerned seller/vendors for the purposes of the delivery and dispatch to the consumers. It is not the case of OP No.1 that it is providing purely gratuitous service to its customers, without any consideration. It is certainly not the case of OP No.1 that it is a charitable organization involved in e-commerce with no business returns for itself, therefore, the plea raised by OP No.1 that it is neither the manufacturer nor the supplier of the articles is of no avail to it and therefore, the OP No.1 cannot claim exoneration in the present matter. It is worthwhile to mention here that now-a-days online shopping is spreading everywhere because it is time and money saving but the responsibilities of the companies cannot be over after selling of the product as it is the bounden duty of the companies to satisfy their customers because it does not give any liberty to usurp the money of the consumers either by sending wrong item or defective product. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh, in the appeal No.27 of 2017, titled as Amazon Seller Services Private Vs. Gopal Krishan, decided on 17.2.2017 held in Para No.8 of its order as under:-

“An agent, who sells a product, is duty bound to ensure its quality, and if the product is found defective, agent shall be vicariously liable for the loss caused to the purchaser, along with the manufacturer of the product. It was so held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case titled as Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kamer Chand & Anr. Revision Petition No.765 of 2016 decided on 30.3.2016.”

In view of above discussion, we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the Ops while supplying the services to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled to relief. Regarding relief, it is admitted version of the complainant that in case of any defect in the product then it provides 3 sorts of remedies to the complainant i.e. in the form of repair, exchange/replacement or refund through concerned seller. In the present case, the ld. counsel has shown the kitchen set to us on 02.01.2019 as received by the complainant from the Ops and on the basis of physical inspection, the set of utensils has been found unused till 02.01.2019. The complainant in the present complaint has prayed for the refund of his amount along with compensation. Since, the set of utensils has been found unused till 02.01.2019, it would be fair and justifiable to make an order of refund to the complainant.

8. As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant by directing the Ops to refund Rs.2398/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 01.01.2018 till realization subject to submission of set of utensils with the Ops by the complainant. The Ops are further directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation charges.

9. The OPs shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.