FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
SMT. SUKLA SENGUPTA, PRESIDENT
The instant petition of complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 11 and 12 of the CP Act, 1986 as amended update.
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant ordered one LED TV from renounced Micromax brand under the model No. 32GRAND through Snapdeal e-commerce site by using the debit card of SBI being debit card No. 4591XXXX XXXX6894 issued by SBI Beadon Street Branch on 16.10.2016. The said order was confirmed and registered by the Snapdeal e-commerce site helpdesk order ID: 16027950261 through email.
It is further stated by the complainant that he purchased the said product by using the debit card issued by SBI and the bank gives 10 % discount for using the debit card with the Snapdeal e- commerce site. The money was debited from the a/c of the complainant on 16.10.2016 and credited to the Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd. through the point of sale system by the transaction No. 629014829943. The complainant further stated that as and when a customer made any transaction on e-commerce on website, the money gets deducted from his bank a/c immediately, but the e-commerce site/retailer does not receive the amount immediately as the banking system holds the money for some time. This money is investible for bank. It is called float and it will generated interest form the assets through which it managing the discount and the e-commerce website generally granted some minimum business in exchange for that interest.
The complainant further stated that the LED TV was successfully delivered to him on 01.11.2016 from Snapdeal e-commerce site helpdesk e-mail destined to him dated Wednesday November 2nd 2016 at 1.55 PM.
It is alleged by the complainant that the product in question developed some black patch on screen which is very annoying to view and enjoy the product. The complainant informed to Micromax and Snapdeal and also SBI on 14.05.2019 through e-mail.
But without getting any response come Micromax and Snapdeal site the complainant sent a letter to them on 11.07.2019. The Snapdeal e-commerce replied the letter on 15.07.2019 and directed the complainant to make contact with the Micromax service centre situated at 16, Princep Street, telephone No. 09051716314, accordingly, the complainant make contact with Micromax service centre through letter dated 02.08.2019 which was received by the Micromax on 22.08.2019 but the Micromax service centre did not reply the letter. after getting the legal notice through email the Snapdeal e-commerce site replied on 22.09.2019 stating inter alia that they are working return request but no steps has been taken by them to that effect.
The complainant further stated that the LED TV are covered under compulsory registration scheme under Indian standards No. 616:2010 date of implementation on and from 03.07.2013. it is alleged by the complainant that unfortunately the national brand image of Mircromax in consumer legal electronic company has drawn bad image and it is their responsibility to redress grievance of customer in a sustainable manner but not to make distance with the customer like the complainant after selling their new product.
Hence, the case is filed by the complainant with a prayer to give direction the Snapdeal India to return back the product in question and refund the amount and to give direction to the OPs for giving compensation for damage done by false assurance by the company e-commerce site, and also to pay a sum of Rs. 90,000/- for harassment, mental pain and agony and unfair trade practice along with litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The OP-2 M/s Snapdeal has contested the claim application by filing a WV denying all the material allegations leveled against them. The other OPs ie OP-1 and 3 to 6 did not contest the case so the case is running e x parte against them.
The OP-2 stating in its WV that Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd. which owned and operated on line market place platform “ www.snapdela.com” is a “market place e-commerce entity” as defined under section 3 (g) of consumer protection (E-commerce) rules, and “intermediary” as defined u/s 2 (i) (w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The OP-2 filed the WV supported by Board Resolution. The OP-2 further stated that it operates its online market place platform under the brand name /trademark “Snapdeal” through the website ie www.snapdeal.com which provides an information technology platform on a digital or electronic network to facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers. The website is a electronic platform which acts as an inter mediatory to facilitate transactions between independent third party sellers and independent customer. The website is a technology platform which enables independent third party sellers to list, advertise, offer to sell and in a case of purchase invoice their products and services to the users of the website.
It is further case of the contesting OP-2 that the contents of the prayer clause of petition of complaint as filed by the complainant are wrong because there has no act or omission on the part of the answering OPs which comes under the unfair trade practice or deficiency in service as per CP Act 2019.
The petition of complaint is baseless and having no cause of action so it is no maintainable in the eye of law and liable to be dismissed in limini.
The case do run ex parte against the OP-1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 vide order dated 27.06.2022 as they did not file WV within the stipulated period.
It appears from the material on record that at the time of filing of this case the complainant filed the petition u/s 11 (2) (b) of CP Act 1986 with a permission to file the case against the OP-2 because the OP-2 is carrying on business outside the jurisdiction of this forum but the remaining the OPs are carrying on their business within jurisdiction of this forum. The prayer of the complainant considered and allowed by this forum vide its order dated 01.11.2019.
In view of the above stated pleading the points of considerations are as follows:-
- Is the case maintainable in its present form?
- has the complainant any cause of action to file the case
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief or reliefs is the complainants entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
All the points of consideration are taken up together for convenience of discussion and to avoid unnecessary repetition.
On careful perusal of the materials on record, and also considering the fact and circumstances of the case as well as the position of law, it is revealed that the case is well maintainable within the ambit of CP Act, 1986 and the complainant has/had a good cause of action to file this case.
It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one LED TV of the renowned Micromax brand under the model No. 32GRAND through Snapdeal e-commerce site by using SBI debit card No. :4591xxxxxxxx6894 issued by the SBI Beadon Street Branch, on 16th Oct, 2016. The said order was confirmed and registered by the Snapdeal e-commerce site helpdesk Order id: 16027950261 through email. The complainant purchased that LED TV in question by using the SBI debit card at a at 10 % discount given by the SBI debit card with the Snapdeal e-commerce site and the money was debited from the a/c of the complainant and credited to the Jasper InfoTech Pvt. Ltd. through the point of sale system vide transaction No. 629014829943 dated 16.10.2016. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the LED tv in question of the renowned Micromax brand through Snapdeal e-commerce site. From the material as well as evidence on record, it is also revealed that the LED TV in question was successfully delivered on 01.11.2016 and delivered to the complainant on 02.11.2016 at 1.55 PM from Snapdeal e-commerce site but it is alleged that the said LED TV in question developed some black patch on the screen. The complainant then made complaint in writing to the Micromax, Snapdeal e-commerce and SBI on 14.05.2019 through email but the Micormax and Snapdeal did not response that letter. From the evidence on record, it is evident that the complainant again wrote a letter to the aforesaid addressee on 11.07.2019 in this regard then Snapdeal e-commerce site replied that letter on 15.07.2019 and directed the complainant to make contact with the Micromax service centre situated at 16, Princeph Street, telephone No. 09051716314, email: Even on receipt of legal notice through email from the complainant Snapdeal e-commerce replied on 22.08.2019 by stating inter alia that they are working return request but did not take any proper step to that effect.
Snapdeal e-commerce ie contesting OP-2 has taken the plea that the Snapdeal e- commerce is a market place e-commerce entity that only acts as intermediary through its well inter fact www. snapdeal.com and provides medium the various seller all over India to offer for sale and sell their products to the general public at large and those sellers are separate entity facing the controlled managed by different persons /stakeholders. All the products on website are sold by the independent third party sellers to avail on line market places by the contesting OP-2 on terms besided by the respected sellers only .
It is further stated by contesting OP-2 that the Snapedal e-commerce is in no way responsible for the purchase product in question of the complainant because the seller directed raise invoices to the final customers for the product sold and bear all commercial risks. The customers like the complainant of the present case are purchasing products from such sellers directed by making payment for their purchase either on pre-paid basis (net banking) or cash on delivery basis, so, the ultimate monetary beneficiary of such sale proceeding is the seller and not contesting OP-2. Ld. Advocate for the OP-2 also argued that the present complaint is based on vague mis-conceived motions and baseless assumption. He has made allegations against the OP-2 but he failed to prove his case. On a close scrutiny of the fact and circumstances as well as the evidence on record, it is revealed that the complainant has purchased the LED TV in question from the renowned Micromax brand under model No. 32GRAND through Snapdeal e commerce site by using SBI debit card issued by SBI Beadon Street Branch on 16.10.2016. OP-2 ie Snapdeal e- commerce cannot avoid its responsibility that the defective product was delivered to the complainant and the OPs did not take any step to return the defective LED TV. At a consideration of Rs. 11,691/- actually paid by the complainant after discount (annexure A).
In view of discussion made above, it is the view of this commission that the contesting OP-2 and also other OPs are held responsible for the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service because even on repeated request made by the complainant for return back the defective product (TV) but they did not pay any heed to his request and refund the valuation of the same. Hence, on careful consideration of entire aspects, it is opined by this commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs and also unfair trade practice which caused harassment, mental pain and agony to the complainant and for such conduct of the OPs they are liable to pay compensation along with the valuation of the LED TV in question and litigation cost.
As and when admittedly the complainant purchased the LED TV of Micromax brand through Snapdeal e-comerce site and valuation of the product actually the amount is of Rs. 11,691/- as per annexure A since then the complainant is a consumer and the OPs are the service provider
Hence,
Being a consumer the complainant could be able to prove his case against the OPs beyond all reasonable doubts and is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
From the prayer of the petition of complaint, it is reflected the complainant has no claim against the OP 1, 4, 5 and 6. The complainant has made claim only against the OPs 2 and 3.
All the points of consideration are thus considered and decided favorably to the complainant.
The case is properly stamped.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is decreed on contest against the OP-2 and ex parte against OPs 1,3,4, 5 and 6 with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The complaint do get the decree as prayed for.
The OPs 2 and 3 are directed to return back the defective LED TV in question and refund the valuation of the same of Rs. 11,691/- actually paid by the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- either jointly or severally within 45 days from this date of order id the complainant is at liberty to execute the decree as per law.
