Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/70/2016

L.Madhusudhana S/o G.L.N.Shastry - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sanpdeal,Chennai office - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.C.M.Veeranna

15 Mar 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:19.07.2016

DISPOSED      ON:15.03.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO: 70/2016

DATED:  15^th MARCH 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages with interest at 24% p.a from the date of complaint and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is an Advocate by profession.  OP No.1 is doing the business as online trader of mobiles, OP No.2 is outsourcing unit and OP No.3 is courier agent.  It is further submitted that, the complainant booked a Samsung J-7 Gold colour mobile through online with OP No.1, the price of the said mobile was Rs.14,185/- with shipping free.  The complainant has received a message from OP No.1 on 25.06.2016 confirming the booking of the mobile stating that, the mobile will be delivered between 1^st July to 4^th July.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has received a message on 29.06.2016 about service of parcel asking to ready with the cash for receiving the carrier.  The complainant also received the phone call from OP No.3 about delivery of the courier.  Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.14,200/- towards price of the mobile to the courier boy and received the parcel.  When the courier boy counting the amount, by that time complainant opened the parcel and found that a piece of stone was packed in the box.  The courier boy also seen the stone found in the box.  The complainant demanded for repayment of the price paid to the courier boy.  The courier boy refused to make payment and telephoned to his Manager to visit the house of the complainant.  The Manager of courier service after inspecting that the stone is packed in the box and asked the courier boy to return the amount to the complainant.  The newspapers published an article and B TV recorded the incident in detail.  In spite of these developments, none of the OPs have contacted the complainant to any curacy.  Because of unfair trade practice of OP No.1 by colluding with OP No.2 and 3 did not care to send Samsung J-7 mobile even though the complainant is ready to pay the amount and also there is no proper explanation from the OPs side for non-sending of the Samsung J-7 mobile.  Because of illegal act of the OPs, the complainant was put into mental agony, shock, hardship and could not able to concentrate his profession, the OPs are jointly and severally liable for the same.  The OPs are colluding with each other for sending the stone in the parcel to gain unlawful gain, which is illegal and unfair trade practice.  The cause of action arose for the complaint on 25.06.2016, the date of booking of mobile through online and further receiving a stone piece which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore, prayed for allowing of the complaint.    

3.      On service of notice, OP No.1 appeared through Sri. K.N Nagaraja Reddy and filed version.  In spite of service of notice, OP No.2 and 3 did not appear before this Forum in person or through their Advocate to prosecute the case and defend the same.  Therefore, OP No.2 and 3 placed ex-parte.

4.      OP No.1 filed version denying the contents of complaint stating that, OP No.1 is not engaged in business of e-marketing or online trading/sale of any product on its own but, merely facilities various independent sellers to list their product for sale on its online platform i.e., snap deal and the buyers/users of the website to buy the product from those sellers out of their own free will and choice.  It is false to state that, the complainant ordered for Samsung J-7 mobile handset for Rs.14,185/- from OP No.1.  It is submitted that, the actual sellers who display the products, makes offer for sale to the visitors of the website, accepts orders placed by the buyers and finally makes delivery of the ordered products to the buyers.  The seller of the product is M/s Royal Business Outsourcing only and the OP No.1 has no role to play in the entire transaction of sale and purchase that took place between complainant and OP No.2.  The OP No.1 has not sent any confirmation message to the complainant. The communication between complainant and OP No.3 is not within its knowledge.  OP No.1 only acts as an intermediary through its web interface

5.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-5 were got marked.  On behalf of OP No.1, one Sri.Shine Joy, the authorized signatory has examined as RW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.B-1 to b-3 were got marked. 

6.      Arguments of both sides heard.

7.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in sending the mobile booked by him through online and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          8.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

9.      It is not in dispute that, complainant is an Advocate by profession.  OP No.1 is doing the business as online trader of mobiles, OP No.2 is outsourcing unit and OP No.3 is courier agent.  The complainant booked a Samsung J-7 Gold colour mobile through online with OP No.1. The cost of the said mobile was Rs.14,185/- with free shipping.  The OP No.1 confirmed the booking of mobile on 25.06.2016 stating that, the mobile will be delivered between 1^st July to 4^th July.  The complainant also received the phone call from OP No.3 about delivery of the courier.  Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.14,200/- towards price of the mobile to the courier boy and received the parcel.  But, when the courier boy counting the amount, complainant opened the parcel and found that a piece of stone was packed in the box.  The courier boy also seen the stone found in the box.  The complainant demanded for repayment of the price paid to the courier boy but, the courier boy refused to repay and telephoned to his Manager to visit the house of the complainant.  The Manager of courier service after inspecting noticed that, stone is packed in the box and asked the courier boy to return the amount to the complainant.  Because of unfair trade practice of OP No.1 by colluding with OP No.2 and 3, they did not care to send Samsung J-7 mobile even though the complainant is ready to pay the amount and also there is no proper explanation from the OPs side for non-sending of the Samsung J-7 mobile.  Because of illegal act of the OPs, the complainant was put to mental agony, shock, hardship and could not able to concentrate his profession.  The OPs are colluding with each other for sending the stone in the parcel to gain unlawful gain, which is illegal and unfair trade practice. 

 10.   In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like photo showing the stone with box marked as Ex.A-1, C.D marked as Ex.A-2, Order summary/Details marked as Ex.A-3 to A-5.

11.    It is argued by the OP No.1 that, they have not engaged in business of e-marketing or online trading/sale of any product on its own but, merely facilities various independent sellers to list their product for sale on its online platform i.e., snap deal and the buyers/users of the website to buy the product from those sellers out of their own free will and choice.  The order for purchase of Samsung J-7 mobile handset for Rs.14,185/- from OP No.1 by the complainant is denied as false.  The actual sellers are who display the products and makes offer for sale to the visitors of the website, accepts orders placed by the buyers and finally makes delivery of the ordered products to the buyers.  The seller of the product is M/s Royal Business Outsourcing only and the OP No.1 has no role to play in the entire transaction of sale and purchase that took place between complainant and OP No.2.  The OP No.1 has not sent any confirmation message to the complainant. The communication between complainant and OP No.3 is not within its knowledge.  The sellers and delivery vendors are separate entity being controlled and managed by different persons/stakeholders.  In the present case, the OP No.3 who was delivered the product to the complainant and the delivery was the sole responsibility of the seller i.e., OP No.2.  OP No.1 never sold nor delivered any product to the complainant.  The content with regard to delivery of a piece of stone to the complainant from that of actual order is a mere statement by the complainant without any basis.  The complainant has not paid any consideration to the seller as the complainant has received the entire amount from the courier boy whatever he paid.  Therefore, there is no loss or damage of any kind.  In case, complainant is still aggrieved, the grievance is lies only against OP No.2, who is the seller. 

12.    In support of its contention, the OP No.1 has filed affidavit evidence of its Authorized Signatory and reiterated the contents of version and relied on the documents like Standard Terms of Sale marked as Ex.B-1, Website terms of use marked as Ex.B-2 and copy of invoice marked as Ex.B-3.

13.   On hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, the complainant has booked a   Samsung J-7 Gold colour mobile through online with OP No.1 and the cost of the said mobile is Rs.14,185/- with free shipping.  The OP No.1 confirmed the booking of mobile on 25.06.2016 stating that, the mobile will be delivered between 1^st July to 4^th July.  The complainant also received the phone call from OP No.3 about delivery of the courier.  Complainant received a mobile by paying a sum of Rs.14,200/- towards price of the mobile to the courier boy but, when the courier boy counting the amount, complainant opened the parcel and found that a piece of stone was packed in the box.  The courier boy also seen the stone found in the box.  The complainant demanded for repayment of the price paid to the courier boy but, the courier boy refused to repay and telephoned to his Manager to visit the house of the complainant.  The Manager of courier service after inspecting noticed that, stone is packed in the box and asked the courier boy to return the amount to the complainant.  Because of unfair trade practice of OP No.1 by colluding with OP No.2 and 3, they did not care to send Samsung J-7 mobile even though the complainant is ready to pay the amount and also there is no proper explanation from the OPs side for non-sending of the Samsung J-7 mobile.  The OPs are colluding with each other and send the stone in the parcel to gain unlawful gain and cheated the publics, which is illegal and unfair trade practice.  Hence, in our considered view, the OPs have committed a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in sending the stone instead of mobile booked by the complainant.  The OP No.1 has been admitted about booking of the mobile and the OP No.3 telephoned to the complainant to delivery of the mobile.  Therefore, the prima-facie shows that, all the OPs have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by colluding with each other, therefore, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.           

            14.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 15/03/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri. Shine Joy, Authorized Signatory of OP No.1 by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**