DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No. 66/2015
Shri Bhandari Mehra
R/o 397/2, Sambhav Camp,
Mandi Village, Delhi-110047. ….Complainant
Versus
1. Naaptol Online Shoping Pvt. Ltd.
Though its Proprietor
Care of 13PL Solution, New Ashok Nagar,
Near Pandey Medicos, Delhi-110096.
2. Vox Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Head Office:-
Through its Director
1900, Main Road, Chandni Chowk
Central Delhi-Delhi-110006
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 09.03.15 Date of Order : 07.06.19
Coram:
Sh. A.S. Yadav, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
- Briefly put, the complainant Bhandari Mehra purchased a mobile VOX 4 SIM Touch & Type Dual Camera Mobile cum Camcorder-DV10 from Naaptol Online Shoping Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1). The complainant purchased the said mobile from OP-1 on 13.02.2015 by paying sum of Rs.3,398/-. Copy of the invoice is annexed as Annexure-A.
1.1 It is averred by the complainant that immediately on switching ‘ON’ the mobile phone, on the day it was delivered to him the mobile started giving various type of problems. Due to the problems in the mobile, complainant lodged a complaint at the customer care. OP-1 reverted back to know the address of the complainant. The complainant sought refund of the full amount which was denied by OP-1 and OP-2. Hence, the present complaint with the prayer to direct OP to refund the amount of Rs.3,398/- paid by the complainant along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical strain and Rs.5,000/- towards the legal expenses.
- OP-1 resisted the complaint inter-alia stating that OP-1 Company has entered into merchant agreement with several vendors and brands. It features various products of various sellers. The details of the product information, price, order procedure, mode of payment etc. can be accessed through company’s website and advertisements in various media medium like News papers, Television channels etc.
- It is submitted that the order placed by the buyers is passed on to the concerned seller/ vendors for selling and delivery purpose of the products.
- It is submitted that OP-1 company is not involved any kind of manufacturing or production activities and also not working as seller or vender. It is only a marketing platform or service provider or link in between buyer and seller. Further it is submitted that on each advertisement it is clearly mentioned “Products and Warranty by 3rd party vendors” to make aware to every buyer that OP-1 company is working as a marketing channel only.
- It is next submitted that OP-1 tried resolving the dispute with the complainant and requested him to send back the product for replacement on the address provided to him but the complainant refused and was insisting on getting refund of the product. It is further submitted that according to the online business model three sequence based remedies are offered and provided to every buyer such as repair, replacement and refund of cost of product. That in the present case the complainant was seeking refund directly. Hence this issue could not be resolved due to the adamant attitude of the complainant. It is therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- OP-2 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 14.05.2015.
- Complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by OP-1 reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
- Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit. On the other hand, evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Arun Kumar Sinha, Authorized Representative has been filed on behalf of OP-1.
- Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant.
- Arguments on behalf of the complainant have been heard and despite providing opportunity to OP-1 none appeared on their behalf to advance oral arguments. Material placed on record is perused carefully.
- The mobile handset of the complainant had started giving him problems on the very day it was delivered to him. After complaining on the customer care number various times, the problem was not resolved by OPs, therefore, the complainant approached this Forum within one month of receiving the mobile handset. The complainant purchased the mobile phone from OP-1 company. He placed the order for the said mobile, made payment, received and further was offered replacement by OP-1. OP-1 company acted as interface between the complainant and the vendor. Complainant on every aspect dealt with OP-1 only.
- Further the complainant is not privy to any agreements made between the vendors and OP-1 company. Hence, having full faith and trust on OP-1 company, complainant purchased the said mobile through its portal. Therefore, OP-1 company cannot now wriggle out from their responsibility by merely mentioning in their advertisement ‘Products and Warranty by 3rd party vendors’. It was OP-1 company’s customer care that offered to replace the product. However, the complainant on receiving the mobile handset found it to be non functional therefore, had lost faith in OP-1 and hence demanded refund of the product which in our opinion is very fair.
- In light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that OP-1 is grossly deficient in service. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct OP-1 to refund of Rs.3,398/- the amount paid by the complainant @ 10% interest per annum from the date of delivery of the product that is 13.02.2015 till realization within a period of two months from the date of receiving of copy of this order. Additionally we direct OP-1 to pay Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Failing which OP shall be liable to pay Rs.3,398/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of delivery of the product that is 13.02.2015 till realization.
However, OP-1 as per their agreement with the vendors is at liberty to recover the money from its vendors or agents.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 07.06.19
