iii. through advertisements on television
iv. promotional text message
In this way every knowledge of products is given, specialties are shown, deal number is given, the pictures/ images of the products are shown and knowledge of price, saving and brand is given in detail. In this way knowledge of rules and conditions are given, knowledge of available scheme is given and the most important is that phone numbers are also given. By this, the customer can obtain items of their choice on profitable rates while sitting in their homes and to do so M/s Naaptol provides help to them. It is further averred that when an order is received by M/s Naaptol through above way, then the said order is sent to the concerned vendor/ manufacturer/ seller and vendor sends the product after proper packing to the customers through courier service company, Indian post service and it is considered that it is liability of the vendors to deliver the item safely to the customers. It is further averred that M/s Naaptol is not a society of any type to manufacture the product and is only an intermediary between purchaser and vendor/ seller and only do the marketing. They specially mentions in the advertisement that after sale, vendor/ merchant will be responsible for any service and that they will also be liable for copyright, trademark, price and warranty. It is further submitted that as per agreements done with the merchant/ vendor/ seller, they will be responsible for the quality of the products and after sale they will be responsible for repair, replacement or refund. It is further submitted that complainant contacted with op no.1 after seeing the advertisement of the above said product and had given the order to purchase the said product. The op no.1 forwarded the request to vendor “Namoshivai Apparels” for sale and delivery. The above said vendor had sent the ordered mobile to the complainant through post which was of good quality and was in working condition and received the costs of Rs.3100/-. It is further averred that main thing of this trade is faithfulness, so none of the company does not do this type of unreliable work due to which their goodwill is destroyed rather every company makes it sure that how ordered product may reach to the customer in safe condition. In these types of business, there is investment of lacs of rupees of the company, so no question of these things and cheating arise at all. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
3 Opposite party no.2 did not appear despite notice and was proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of driving licence Ex.C2, photographs Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 and CD Ex.C7. Ld. counsel for op no.1 made a statement that their written statement may be read as evidence and beside it he also tendered copy of document Ex.R1 i.e. list of online marketing companies.
5. We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.1 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1. He has also tendered copy of driving licence Ex.C2, photographs Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 and CD Ex.C7. On the other hand, op no.1 produced list of online marketing companies Ex.R1.
7. As per allegations of complainant, he had passed an order to opposite party no.1 through online for purchase of a mobile, but however, when delivery was made to him and when he opened the parcel he found pieces of hard soil. He has placed on record photographs Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 showing pieces of hard soil in the parcel. He has also placed on record a CD Ex.C7. On the other hand, op no.1 has taken a plea that they only receive order from the customers through online marketing and then pass order to supplier to supply goods and their work is only as agent and there is no liability of op no.1 to reimburse the losses. No doubt the act of op no.1 is of an agent for marketing the products of the sellers like op no.2 but however, it is an admitted fact on record that order was passed to op no.1 for supply of the mobile in question and parcel was supplied on the direction of op no.1 by op no.2 but however after opening of the parcel, it was found that there are pieces of hard soil and complainant did not receive the product i.e. mobile for which he passed order and paid Rs.3100/- which clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and mal-trade practice on the part of ops. The complainant made request for refund of the amount but however ops did not bother for that which clearly amounts to deficiency in service.
8. In view of above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.3100/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest on the said amount @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for compliance of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated: 22.2.2019 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
