IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday, the 29th day of April, 2017.
Filed on 21-11-2016
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No.379/16
between
Complainants:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.John Jaccob Naaptol Service Ware House
Puthenpurakcal Naaptol Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd.
Cheriyanadu. P.o C/o-13PL Solutions Old No-1398
Alappuzha- 689511 New No-B1331, New Ashok Nagar
Near Pandey Medicos,
New Delhi-110096
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:
The complainant placed an order for a tablet before the opposite party after impressed upon by the advertisement of the opposite party. The product has been delivered on 18/11/2016 and complainant paid an amount of Rs.4, 398/- towards the cost of the gadget. When the complainant operate the said tablet the complainant noticed that the product is of very low quality and it could not serve the purpose for which he brought and the same day the complainant registered a complaint with the opposite party and requested to refund the price of the gadget. But they refused to do so and intimated that they had provisions only to replace the product. But the complainant does not need replacement. Hence filed this complaint seeking refund of the price of the tablet together with compensation and cost.
2. Version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The opposite party i.e. Naaptol provides its services to sellers/vendors and enables various vendors/ sellers to sell their products through the broadcasting medium like website, television channels, print media etc. of the company. The company has entered into various merchant agreements with the several vendors/ sellers and brands and also features their products. The details of the products, price, order procedure, mode of payment etc. can be accessed through company’s website and advertisements or through the abovementioned mediums. The company also discloses its customer care number on each and every advertisement that provides entire details about that particular product. M/s Naaptol company is a registered entity and is a law abiding corporate. There are some general commercial conducts of the company which opposite party would like to bring before this Hon’ble Forum and they are (a) That every deal offered by the company is assigned a Deal Code Number; Buyers/customers can place their order through phone calls or online by referring it. (b) That the orders placed by the buyers will be passed on to the concerned vendors/sellers by M/s. Naaptol for selling and delivery purpose. Then the product will be sent/ delivered to the respective buyer/ customer through the Post department or Courier services at the address of the respective buyer/customer. (c) It is pertinent to note that the company M/s Naaptol is not involved in any kind of Manufacturing or Production activities and not working as seller or vendor. M/s Naaptol is working as a I] Marketing platform or link between Buyer of Seller. That the opposite party states that all the averments and allegation etc. made in the complaint are absolutely denied, except those that are specifically admitted hereunder. That the complaint filed by the complainant is neither maintainable in law nor on the factual grounds and therefore it is liable to be dismissed in toto. (With reference to Paragraph.No.2 it is submitted that as per the record, the complainant after watching the advertisement has placed an order for a “branded product” i.e. “Data wind 3G Calling Tablet” (hereinafter referred to as “said product”) on 3rd November 2016 through the opposite party who act as an online shopping portal and from the vendor/ seller named “Data wind Innovation Rajoukri” for Rs. 4398/- only (Rupees Four Thousand Three Hundred And Ninety Eight only) paid to the above referred vendor/ seller/ by way of cash on delivery (COD). It is further submitted that nowadays a variety of products are being offered for sale through the online shopping portals of various names/ brands and it is ultimately the customer’s choice to purchase any product or not after satisfying themselves with the complete details and description of the concerned product. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant raised in the present paragraph that “he has purchased the product by seeing their tempting advertisement” is completely unjustifiable. With reference to paragraph no.3 it is submitted that it is the process that every E-commerce industry follows and according to that when the order is been placed by the buyer/customer the same is to be intimated to the concerned vendor/ seller who then performs the duty to dispatch and deliver a standard quality product by keeping in mind all the standards pertaining to packaging and delivery and then deliver it to the concerned buyer. Accordingly the said product was dispatched to the complainant by the above referred vendor on 11th November 2016. Therefore it is cleared from the above explanation that the product is not sold by opp. Party Ms. Naaptol but by the above referred seller. Annexed herewith as annexure “A” is the copy of the Receipt/ Bill provided to the complainant which clearly shows the name of the seller. It is further submitted that according to generally followed practice whenever a new electronic product is purchased, it has to be charged full before start using the same. Further, it is submitted that the complainant has described the said product as of “very low quality” which is very vague statement and does not clearly describes the defects in the said product. Also, it is submitted that the complainant has not mentioned in this paragraph that “on what basis” he concluded or realized that the said product “could not serve the purpose of a Tablet/ mobile”, though he himself has placed the order for the said product after watching and satisfying himself with the features and functions of the said product. It is further submitted that the reasons for the “feeble sound in calls” and “shadow like pictures on camera” could be due to “network problem” and “settings issue”, which could have been resolved if the complainant had visited the vendor i.e, Datawind Service Centre as the said product was a branded product carrying “ 1 year Manufacturer Warranty” and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3.. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext.A1 and MO1.
4. Considering the allegation of the complainant this Forum as raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entailed to get relief as prayed for?
5. Issues 1 and 2:-
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a tablet from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.4398/- on 18/11/2016. When the complainant started using the product he noticed that and the product is of low quality and he could not use it. There after he requested the opposite party to refund the price of the gadget. But the opposite party refused to refund the price hence this complaint.
6. The complainant filed proof affidavit and produced the gadget before the Forum which was marked as Ext.MO1 and the invoice dated 3/11/2016 was marked as Ext.A1.
The specific allegation of the complainant is that the product is of low quality and could not serve the purpose for which he bought. The complainant spent Rs. 4398 trusting the product will be good. Since the complainant could not use the product the opposite party is liable to refund the price of the gadget. According to the complainant when the product was delivered he noticed that the product is of low quality and he immediately intimated the opposite party and asked to refund its price on the same day itself but the opposite party failed to do so. Therefore the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get the relief. The complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 12,000/- towards compensation while deciding the quantum the gravity of mental agony sustained is to the complainant is to be considered. It can’t be calculated on the basis of mere presumption. The amount of compensation should be reasonable and adequate.
In the result the complaint is allowed the opposite party is directed to refund the price of the gadget Rs. 4398/- (Rupees Four thousand three hundred and ninety eight only) to the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1500/-(Rupees Thousand Five hundred only) towards compensation no order as to costs. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order, failing which an amount of Rs. 4398/- shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. On compliance of the order the opposite party can collect the gadget from the office of the Forum.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 29th April, 2017.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
MO1 - Tablet
Ext.A1 - Retail invoice/ Challan
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
//True copy//-
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/Opposite party/SF
Typed by:Br/-
Compd.By: -
