1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Xolo 8X 1000 HIVE 16GB handset from OP.1 through OP.2 vide Invoice No.07597096 dt.07.10.2014 for Rs.12, 265/- but after few days of purchase, the complainant found improper functioning of the handset like set hang and auto switch off. On contact, the OP.2 advised the complainant to approach OP.3 who is the Authorised Service Centre(ASC) of the product and the complainant handed over the set to OP.3 on 19.6.2015 but later on the complainant found that the OP.3 is absconding from the place of business by locking the stall for which the complainant is put to hardship. Legal notice from the complainant also did not yield any result. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.12, 265/- towards cost of the handset and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.
2. The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant has not added the manufacturer of the handset as a necessary party to this case. It is submitted that this OP is restricted to administrative control of the Company but not the manufacturer and the complainant has neither added the ASC nor manufacturer of the product to this case as necessary party and hence this case is not maintainable.
3. The OP No.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that it only operates online marketplace platform under trade mark “Snapdeal” through website as an independent 3rd party seller and independent end customers. It is contended that the seller directly raises invoices to the final customers and receives payment but ultimate monetary beneficiary of the sale is the seller but not this OP.2. The OP.2 neither offers nor provides any assurance to the buyer of the products. It is also further contended that the OP.2 is a shopping mall wherein different independent 3rd party seller advertises and offer their products to sale to 3rd party buyers and in case of any defect in goods sold by such seller in the shoping mall, it is the seller who is held liable for the consequences and not the owner of the shaping mall. The OP submitted that in this case also the OP.2 is not liable for any defect in the handset of the complainant. With these and other contentions, denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
4. The OP No.3 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.
5. The parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases. Heard from the A/R for the OP.2 and perused the materials available on record. The other parties are absent on calls.
6. In this case purchase of XOLO 8X 1000 HIVE 16 GB handset purchased by the complainant through online from the OP.2 is an admitted fact. The case of the complainant is that after few days of purchase due to malfunctioning of the set in respect of set hang and auto switch off, he handed over the set for repair to OP.3 on 19.6.2015 but later on found that the shop of OP.3 is closed. The complainant has filed copy of job sheet issued by OP.3 on 19.6.2015. The OP.1 filed counter contending that the complainant has not added the manufacturer as necessary party to this case. The OP further stated that the OP.1 is only the administrative office of the Company but not the manufacturer. It is also true that nothing is available on record showing the OP.1 is the manufacturer of the product. Further the complainant failed to participate in the hearing for which we have lost opportunity to know anything about the OP.1 from him.
7. The OP.2 in his counter stated that it operates online market place platform under trademark “Snapdeal” through website and it works as intermediary to facilitate sales transactions between the independent 3rd party seller and independent end customers. The website enables independent 3rd party seller to list, advertise and offer to sell their products and services to the users of the website. Once the users accepts the offer and sell of the product of 3rd party seller on the website, the seller is intimated electronically and required to ensure that the products are made available and in accordance to the the terms. Furthermore, any kind of assurances in terms of warranty on the product or after sale service or otherwise is provided either by the manufacturer of the product sold or the ASC and the the OP does not offer any assurance to the end of buyer of the product. In the above circumstances, the OP.2 being the online shoping mall is not the manufacturer of the product or actual seller either. The OP.2 being the intermediary of the product sold, we do not find any deficiency in service on its part as the product has been delivered by OP.2 to the buyer in good condition.
8. Further the A/R for OP.2 has challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this case. He submitted that the handset was booked by the Complainant at Nizambad District of AP and the set was delivered there also by OP.2. The complainant has paid the consideration from SBH, Torlikonda, Nizambad and he has handed over the set to ASC at Khairatabad, Hyderabad and hence no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant has submitted through his complaint that the set was booked from Jeypore but without adducing any evidence and hence we do not lay any importance to the said submission of the complainant.
9. On perusal of the documents on record, it was also found that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try over this case.
10. In view of above facts, we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant which deserves to be dismissed. In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
(to dict.)
