1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Lenovo Vike K4 Note (16 GB) handset from OP.1 vide Invoice No.S7FF1E/16 – 1777525 dt.18.09.2016 for Rs.11, 699/- through OP.2 and the consignment reached to the complainant on 28.9.2016 but it was found that there was a long scratch mark in the handset after switching on the handset.  It is submitted that on contact, the Ops advised to return the set to RMS-VUL-KOL, Plot No.687, 683 & 695, Mouza Dankuni, J. L. No.83, Warehouse Unit-VII, Durgapur Express Way Dankuni, Kolkata – 712 310 to have a new phone and the complainant sent the handset back through Speed Post on 28.09.2016 but the addressee refused to receive the consignment on 03.10.2016 and hence it was received back by the complainant on 13.10.2016.  The complainant submitted that the scratch mark is clearly visible to the naked eye and the Ops being convinced assured to provide a new handset but the addressee at Kolkata refused to receive the consignment containing defective handset.  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.11, 699/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 18% p.a. from 16.09.2016 and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding.  The OP No.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the OP.2 is neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the product purchased by the complainant but it merely operates an online market place which acts as intermediary between the actual seller and the buyer of the product.  It is further contended that the OP.2 is not engaged in sale of any product on its own but merely facilitates various sellers to list their products for sale on its online platform i.e. Snapdeal.com and the buyers/users of the website are to buy product from the seller out of their free will and choice.  It is also further contended that any return/replacement policy with regard to product is offered and provided by the seller of the product and any kind of information provided to the complainant is based upon the information received from the seller of the product and the OP.2 does not provide any information at its own.  With these and other contentions, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP.3 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant has neither attached the copy of invoice of the alleged handset nor provided any details to substantiate his allegations and hence the complainant needs to strict proof of the same.  It is further contended that each and every device of the Company goes through all the quality checks and hence the OP never supplies defective products.  The OP also further contended that it deals with all its dealers/sellers on principal to principal basis and cannot be held liable for any alleged acts/omissions of the dealers/sellers.  Thus denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     Parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The Ops filed affidavits.  Heard from the A/Rs for Ops 2 & 3 and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case, purchase of Lenovo Vike K4 Note (18 GB) by the complainant from OP.1 vides Invoice No. S7FF1E/16 – 1777525 dt.18.09.2016 for Rs.11, 699/- is supported by relevant documents available on record.  It is seen that the complainant booked the handset vide order ID No.15183951634 on 16.09.2016 and the consignment reached to the complainant on 28.09.2016.  The case of the complainant is that on switching on the handset he found a long scratch mark inside the handset but not on the glass which is a major defect and hence as per advice of the Ops, he sent back the handset through Speed Post on 28.9.16 to get a new handset but the address at Kolkota refused to accept the Speed Post article on 03.10.2016 and the complainant received back the consignment on 13.10.2016.

6.                     The OP.3 in his counter stated that the complainant has not attached copy of Invoice and other details in order to substantiate his allegations and the OP never sends any defective product to any of its customers.  It is further stated that the OP.3 deals with all its sellers on principal to principal basis and any omission or commission committed by the seller, the OP.3 is not liable.

7.                     The above contention of the OP.3 has been duly met by the complainant and he has furnished the copy of Invoice, Speed Post documents along with other papers.  On perusal of those records it was clearly ascertained that on receipt of handset from the Ops, he found long scratch mark in the handset and after contacting the Ops, the complainant has sent the defective set to the Ops at their Kolkota address to get a new handset but the Kolkota office refused to receive the consignment sent by the complainant through Speed Post.  The Speed Post document clearly indicates that the consignment has reached Kolkota Office of Ops on 03.10.2016 and on refusal the complainant has received back the consignment on 13.10.2016.  Thereafter finding no other go, the complainant has come up with this case but the OP.3 with untenable plea has come up with its counter stating that the complainant has not furnished any purchase details and other papers.  This attitude of the OP.3 certainly leads to unfair trade practice on its part.  If the new handset is found defective on opening of the parcel, it was the duty of OP.3 to immediately replace the handset with a new one since the consideration is already paid.  Without doing so, the OP.3 in our opinion has committed deficiency in service being the manufacturer of the product.

8.                     The OP.2 as we found has played the role of intermediary between the complainant and the seller.  It is seen that the OP.2 is an online market place i.e. Snapdeal.com only facilitates various sellers to list their product for sale on its online platform and the users of the website is to buy the product from the sellers out of their own free will and choice.  Therefore, the OP.2 is not engaged in selling of any product on its own but merely acts as a facilitator between the sellers and buyers.  Regarding return/replacement policy to the products, it is offered and provided by the seller of the product and the OP.2 does not provide any information of its own.  Hence we find no cause of action against OP No.2.

9.                     As we have already held supra, the OP.3 is liable to refund Rs.11, 699/- to the complainant with interest @12% p.a. from the date of booking.  Due to such inaction of the OP.3, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony for which he is entitled for some compensation and cost of this litigation.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel, a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complainant petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.11, 699/- towards cost of the set with interest @ 12% p.a. from 16.09.2016 in lieu of the defective set and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)