Delhi

East Delhi

CC/636/2015

MR. O.P POONIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHOP CLUES CLUES NETWORK - Opp.Party(s)

18 Sep 2019

ORDER

                         CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                

                                                                                                  Consumer Complaint no.          636/2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  26/08/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 18/09/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          20/09/2019  In matter of

Mr. O P Punia         

R/o Flat no. 405, Tower 1

Common Wealth Game Village   

Nr Akshardham Temple Delhi 110092……...………..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

Shop Clues

Clues Network Pvt Ltd

Building no. 112 Sec 44

Gurgaon Haryana 122001……………………..…...…………..……….Opponent

 

Complainant                                       In Person

Opponent                                            Mr. J. Sai Deepak & Advocates                          

                                                

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case  -

Complainant purchased online Samsung LED TV full HD 40’’ through OP/Shop Clue vide code no. 6675782 for a sum of Rs 23990/-vide order no. 58110915 (Ex CW1/1) which was delivered on 29/06/2015. The said TV had 100% secured under Buyer Protection Rights. It was stated that OP was contacted for installing the TV, but no technician came for installing so manufacturer was contacted who sent their service engineer. It was stated that after installing TV on payment, it was told that the said TV was defective and needed to be replaced (Ex CW1/2 as Anne. E) Complainant stated that under the replacement policy, lodged complaint on OP website on 16/07/2015 picture of defective screen (Ex CW1/3 Anne. F&G).

OP assured to get the defect removed through their Merchant in 1-2 days, but due to sudden demise of his father, he could not contact OP and went to his native village. After returning from village, he again contacted OP who refused to provide any support under return policy as return time was of 2 days which was over. As the said TV had one year standard warranty still OP did not provide service to the complainant. So he wrote number of emails and failure to receive rely, he filed this complaint on the ground that as he was living under the jurisdiction of this Forum and claimed refund of the cost of TV Rs 23990/- with 18% interest per annum and Rs 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs 5000/- for ligation charges.  

OP in their written statement denied all allegations of complainant. It was stated that complainant purchased LED TV through online portal Shop Clues and manufacturer of the product was Samsung who was not made as a necessary party. As OP being an online portal so neither provide service nor any warranty. Both the facilities were provided by the manufacturer/ Samsung. The present OP could not be made liable as beyond their agreement with Shopclues Agreement and terms and conditions.

It was stated that OP was an intermediary u/s 2(1) (w) of IT Act 2000 and were not liable for third party contents on its website in reference to Section 79 of the I. T. Act. Hence, OP was an online market place and sellers could display and sell their product to the buyers through this portal. It was also stated that sellers and buyers were made close each other for their business. So OP was not liable for any allegations of defect in product, but under return policy for fix period if any product was found defective, would be replaced. In reference to Shreya Singhal vs Union of India others, it was specifically laid down that intermediary were not liable for any services. OP had no unfair trade practice and prayed for exemption from any liability under clause 4 of the Shopclues User Agreement (Ex OPW1/Ann. B).

It was submitted that under Easy Returns, Replacements & Refunds Policy, the maximum time was 10 days and replacement could be done under the defective /damaged products if not under the manufacturer’s warranty (Ex OPW1/Ann.C (viii) (c). As complainant had contacted after a long time, so replacement was against the refund policy and the same was intimated through emails to the complainant.

Complainant in his rejoinder denied all replies submitted by OP. It was stated that within two days after purchase of said TV, OP was contacted about “White Screen” which was told by the Samsung service engineer. As OP had refund and replacement policy, so immediately contacted OP, but did not care rather refused to entertain the complaints. There was no warranty card in the set which was also intimated to OP. All complaints were lodged with OP under standard warranty tenure. Even service engineer from Samsung charged as no warranty card was inside the set so service charges were paid by the complainant. Hence all the facts and evidence were correct and true.

Complainant filed his evidences through his own affidavit where he relied on invoice, complaints lodged to OP and evidence of defects put in the pictures were sent, but OP denied all the allegations which were wrong and incorrect. He relied on invoice (Anne. A) & (Anne. B) and facts of OP mail dated 17/07/2015 where OP asked to send details of incident pertaining to the defects in the TV screen. It was relied on the email sent to OP dated 07/08/2015 where OP failed to reply or provide the services (Ex CW1/Anne. J). Hence, prayed for giving directions to OP for refund of the cost of the TV. 

OP filed evidences through Md Trishangini Ghai, working as Analyst cum Legal & Compliance of Clue Network Pvt Ltd and affirmed that OP were bound by the Shopclues User Agreements (OP Anne.B) and abide provisions of the Intermediary Guidelines, 2011 and complainant had not send any images of defective product/screen images within 2 days of delivery of the product to OP as per the OP conditions.

Complainant filed written arguments and stressed on his contents of complains as OP failed to comply their on Shopclues Agreement where refund or replacement policy was based.

Arguments were heard from counsel for complainant as OP did not put appearance on the date of arguments. After perusal of materials on record, order was reserved.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It has been observed that OP was not regular on the dates of hearing. Even on 06/01/2016, OP refused to accept the notice and did not put appearance, but due to over work in Forum, no Ex Parte proceedings were initiated and complainant was directed to file evidences. Later on OP also filed evidence which were taken on record. If Ex Parte proceedings had been initiated then OP evidence would not been taken on record. 

It was clear from the evidences that manufacturer of the LED TV ie Samsung was not made  necessary party by complainant and OP being a online portal, liability cannot be fixed, but seeing the email replies of OP, complainant was assured for prompt service besides refund the cost of TV under their refund policy. Complainant had sent pictures of defects in screen to OP. OP stated time for refund was of 2 days, but in Shopclues Agreement, it is mentioned for 10 days. Certainly OP violated their own terms and conditions besides refused to accept the notice served from this Forum. This amounts to deficiency in services.

Online portals are ecommerce business and meant for needy consumers where they (consumers) would get genuine good quality products and time saving measures. More so seller also extend benefits for their own growth of business, but here not only defective product/TV was supplied, OP did not consider Shopclues Agreement.

We come to the conclusion as complaint has merits. That being so, we pass following order-

1-OP/Shopclues shall refund the cost of the TV Rs 23,990/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of first complaint was sent to OP within 30 days from the receiving of this order.

 

2-We also award compensation of Rs 10,000/-for defective supplying of product which caused physical, mental and financial harassment to complainant. This will include litigation charges also.

 

3-If order is not complied, complainant shall be entitled to recover same interest on all awarded amount till realization.

  

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18(6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR)  and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.

 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari –Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur – Member

                                                               Sukhdev Singh  President