DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/11

Date of Institution : 03.01.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 04.07.2022

Sh. Jaspal Singh s/o Kuldeep Singh Resident of 2331, Sharifpura, Street No. 4, Near Banke Bihari Mandir, Amritsar.  …Complainant

Versus

1. Snap Deal Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd., 246, 1st Floor, Phase-III, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020 Through its Authorized Representative. 

2. Westway Electronics Ltd., C-189, Nariana Industrial Area, Phase-I, Naraina, New Delhi, Delhi-110028 Through its Authorized Representative.

3. Western Electronics, B-102, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Phase-II, Noida, UP-201305 Through its Authorized Representative.

…Opposite Parties

 

Complaint U/S 12 and 13 of The Consumer Protection Act

Present: Sh. Anil Bhatia Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Mohan Arora Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1. Opposite parties No. 2 and 3 exparte. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against Snap Deal Jasper Infotech Private Limited, New Delhi and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant purchased one Weston LED for personal consumption from opposite party No. 2 through opposite party No. 1 having model Weston WEL-5500 140 CM (55) Smart Ultra HD (4K) vide invoice dated 22.4.2017. The complainant further submitted that from the very inception i.e. within 3 days from the purchase the said LED started making problems in installation, speaker and working as well and it started switched off automatically. The complainant registered the problem on customer care No. 92126-92126 and the officials of customer care directed the complainant that he can registered the return request of said LED which would be replaced within 7 days from the date of registration of request. On their advice the complainant on 3.5.2017 through email registered his request for return of the said LED due to non functioning from the very inception. But the opposite parties never replaced or returned the said LED. Thereafter, the complainant again called the customer care office and request again to consider his return request regarding the said LED and they assured that the said LED will be returned at the earliest. But even then all the opposite parties did not make any effort to solve the grievance of the complainant and the said LED is still lying with the complainant in no working condition. This act of the opposite parties gave mental, physical and financial harassment to the complainant. After that the complainant served a legal notice upon all the opposite parties on 23.12.2017 but opposite parties did not resolve the grievance of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to refund the consideration of LED i.e. Rs. 48,990/-.   

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental and  physical harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation.  

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 filed written reply taking preliminary submissions that the opposite party No. 1 operates its online marketplace platform under the brand name Snapdeal which facilitate sales transactions between independent third party sellers and independent consumers. Further, all the products on website are sold by third party sellers who availed of the online marketplace services provided by the answering opposite party. As the products are sold by third party sellers so they are liable for any defect in the goods sold by them. Further, the opposite party No. 1 have taken preliminary objections that opposite party No. 1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the complaint. Further, complainant suppressed true and material facts from this Commission and not approached with clean hands. The product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by the opposite party No. 1 so they have no role in providing warranty of the product and it is the responsibility of the seller. Further, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 has not charged any amount form the complainant for using the services available on online marketplace platform so complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. Further, the complainant raised return request against his order under the category dissatisfied with the item and it is specifically mentioned in the policy of the opposite party No. 1 that the Electronic products cannot be replaced, returned or refunded in case the buyer is not satisfied with the product and he raises the issue under the category dissatisfied with the item, so also the opposite party No. 1 is not liable for any defect in the product. 

4. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 not denied that the complainant purchased one LED for Rs. 48,990/- on 22.4.2017 from their marketplace platform. Further, in the present case the opposite party No. 2 sold the product and complainant purchased the same and answering opposite party has no role to play in the entire transaction of sale and purchase. Further, the opposite party No. 1 repeat all the contents on merits which were already discussed above in the preliminary submissions and preliminary objections so there is no need to mention the same again. However, lastly the opposite party No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint against the opposite party No. 1 with costs. 

5. The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 did not appear before this Commission despite service, so the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.  

6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of retail invoice dated 22.4.2017  Ex.C-2, copy of email Ex.C-3, copy of legal notice Ex.C-4, original postal receipts Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1  tendered in evidence copy of guidelines for foreign direct investment on e-commerce Ex.OP-1/1, copy of website terms of use Ex.OP-1/2, copy of standard terms of sale Ex.OP-1/3 and Ex.OP-1/4, copy of email conversation Ex.OP-1/5, copy of judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in RP No. 1422 of 2016 Ex.OP-1/6, copy of judgment passed by Hon'ble District Forum, Amritsar titled as Tarundeep Singh Vs Snapdeal Ex.OP-1/7, affidavit of Ankita Sharma Authorized Signatory of opposite party No. 1 Ex.OP-1/8 and closed the evidence. 

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file carefully.

9. It is admitted case of the complainant that he purchased the Weston LED manufactured by opposite parties No. 2 and 3 through opposite party No. 1 vide invoice Ex.C-2 for Rs. 48,990/- on 22.4.2017. The complainant deposed in his affidavit Ex.C-1 that from the very inception within 3 days from the purchase the said LED started making problems in installation, speaker and working as well and it started switched off automatically. He also deposed in this affidavit that the complainant registered the problem on customer care number who advised the complainant to register return request of the above LED and said LED would be replaced within 7 days from the date of registration of request. The complainant sent a return request to the opposite party which was registered on 3.5.2017 and this fact is duly proved from Ex.C-3 from that it is clear that complainant registered his return request for the Weston Made LED Television. In our view when a return request is registered by the opposite party No. 1 then they are duty bound to return the said item. The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 intentionally not appeared before this Commission as they have nothing to say against the claim of the complainant. In the present complaint the opposite parties have not taken back the defective LED from the complainant even after the registration of the return request from the complainant which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of all the opposite parties. 

10. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to replace the LED of the complainant with a new one. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 3,300/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 2,200/- as costs and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties are directed to refund the billing amount of the LED i.e. Rs. 48,990/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till its actual realization alongwith above mentioned compensation and costs. All the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        4th Day of July 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member