Case No.290/13 - P.N. Ganesh Prasad Vs Snap Deal.Com
05.07.2017
Present none.
This complaint is filed against Snap Deal.Com. The case of the complainant is that on 01.02.13 while going through the advertisement of Snap Deal.com, he ordered a punching bag. The same was delivered on 07.02.13 however it was having pre existing wear and tear marks and a small cut and after using it for couple of sessions, within 2-3 days the punching bag started wearing off, the stitches got torn off. The matter was brought to the notice of OP vide email dated 11.02.13 but the punching bag was not replaced. Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service this complaint has been filed.
The complaint is contested by the OP on the ground that OP is neither the manufacture nor the seller of the punching bag purchased by the complainant and it merely operates online market place website where products are sold by third party sellers. The arguments were heard and the matter was reserved for orders.
During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for OP placed a judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Snapdeal Vs Nikhil Bansal – Revision petion No.697 of 2016 – decided on 30.05.16 – in that case the complaint was filed against Snapdeal and that complaint was dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable against Snapdeal as it was merely a brand name owned by a company namely Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and Snapdeal by itself is not a legal entity. .
Therefore, notice was sent to both the parties. Complainant was duly served on 03.11.06 and again on 11.05.17. In fact the notices were sent to make the necessary amendment but the complainant has not responded. For the aforesaid reasons, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
