Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/2/2017

Dhananjay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Snap Deal Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Dhananjay Kumar

16 Jun 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                 Consumer Complaint No.02 of 2017

                                                                 Date of institution:  03.01.2017                                                        

                                                              Date of decision   :  16.06.2017

Dhananjay Kumar son of Sh. Lal Mohar Gupta, resident of H.No.147, Sec-21, Block A, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, C/o Modern Steels limited G.T.Road, Sirhind Side, City Mandi Gobindgarh.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Snap Deal- Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd., 246, Ist Floor, Phase III, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Pin Code-110020.
2.  Savex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. BLR-PC C/o Proconect Supply Chain Solutions Ltd., Sy No.102/1 Adakamaranhalli village, Dasanapura Hobli, Makali Post City Bangalore, State Karnataka Pin 562123.
3. M/s Delhivery Logistic Pvt. Ltd., Ist Floor, Plot 82, Sec- 44, Gurgaon, Haryana. India Pin 122002.
4. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A 25 Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area Estate, New Delhi, 110044.

 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

                      Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                           

                      Sh. Inder Jit, Member

   

Present :            Sh. Dhananjay Kumar, complainant in person.

                            Sh. Puneet Gupta, Adv.Cl. for OP No.1.

                          Sh. G.S.Nagra, Adv.Cl. for OP No.4.

                            Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 exparte.

 

ORDER

Inder Jit, Member

                   Complainant Dhananjay Kumar son of Sh. Lal Mohar Gupta, resident of H.No.147, Sec-21, Block A, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, C/o Modern Steels limited G.T.Road, Sirhind Side, City Mandi Gobindgarh, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                The complainant ordered a new mobile/cell phone i.e. Samsung Galaxy J2 Pro 16 GB to OP No.1, vide its order No.15411789074 on 28.09.2016 and paid Rs.9490/- through his credit card No.4514570009789986. There was one year guarantee on the said mobile hand set from the date of purchase i.e. 28.09.2016.  On 03.10.2016 the authorized agent of OP No.1 delivered the mobile hand set in question along with bill/invoice No.S95F8/16-17/102228 dated 28.09.2016 issued by OP No.2 and took signature of the complainant upon receiving receipt.  On the same day when the complainant opened the package of said mobile hand set, he was shocked to find that front screen of the mobile hand set was damaged. The complainant promptly informed OP No.1 through online portal and the mobile hand set was collected by OP No.3, vide pickup receipt No.128628855211 dated 04.10.2016. Thereafter on 27.10.2016, the complainant received another mobile hand set sent by OP No.1 through receipt No.1002715144904, which was found as recurred issue of screen damaged. The complainant made several requests through phone calls, emails and registered posts but all the efforts made by the complainant went in vain.  The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to replace the mobile hand set with new one and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages and compensation.

3.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs. But OPs No. 2 & 3 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OPs No. 2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte. 

4.                The complaint is contested by OPs No.1 & 4. In reply to the complaint OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is  liable to be dismissed due to misjoinder of necessary parties; the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Forum; the complainant does not fall under the category of "Consumer"; this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the same is barred by the terms of agreement and the complainant has no cause of action against OP No.1. As regards the facts of the complaint, OP No.1 stated that OP No.1 is not engaged in sale of any product on its own but merely facilitates various sellers to list their product for sale on its online platform and the buyers/users of the website to buy the product from the sellers out of their own free will and choice.  It is further stated that any kind of advertisement with regard to product is offered and provided by the seller of the product and not OP No.1.  In the present complaint, the product was advertised and sold by OP No.2.  OP No.1 is not the manufacturer of the product purchased by the complainant and it does not provide any kind of warranty as the warranty or after sale services on the product is provided by the manufacturer/seller of the product.  OP No.1 has no role in entire transaction. It is further stated that in order to facilitate replacement, OP No.1 requested the complainant herein to repack the disputed product as per the instructions provided to him. The product was received by OP No.1 but the same was returned to the complainant as a part of the product was missing in the package sent by the complainant.  OP No.1 cannot be made liable for a default of the complainant. Even otherwise if the product was found in damaged condition, it is a matter of dispute between the complainant and the seller i.e. OP No.2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. After denying the other averments made in the complaint OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

5.                The complaint is also contested by OP No.4, who is the manufacturer of the product but the complainant, at the time of arguments, made a statement that he does not want to claim anything from OP No.4. Hence, there is no need to mention the written version of OP No.4.

6.                In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence copy of order bearing ID No.15411789074 Ex. C-1, copy of account statement Ex. C-2, copy of retail invoice Ex. C-3, copy of reverse logistics receipt Ex. C-4, copy of net tracing report Ex. C-5, copy of email dated 29.10.2016 Ex. C-6, copy of email dated 01.11.2016 Ex. C-7, copy of legal notice Ex. C-8, affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Mr. Shine Joy Ex. OP1/1, true copy of terms and conditions Ex. OP1/2, copy of judgment as mark-A and closed the evidence. OP  No.4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Aninda Bose Ex. OP4/1, copy of warranty card Ex. OP4/2 and closed the evidence.

7.                The complainant submitted that a mobile hand set with broken screen was sent to him vide invoice issued by OP No.2, which was immediately returned. Again the same defective set was sent to him. Despite several requests the broken screen hand set was not replaced by OPs. Hence, he submitted that OPs No.1 & 2 are liable for the unfair trade practice. Hence, they be directed to replace the handset and compensation may also be granted.

8.                On the other hand the Ld. counsel for OP No.1 pleaded that "Snapdeal" operates its on-line marketplace platform through its website, which is an online market place, an electronic platform, which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sales transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. Further, the Ld. counsel pleaded that the sellers directly receive the payments and raise the invoices to the final customers for the products sold and bear all the commercial risks and therefore OP No.2 is only responsible for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, if any.

9.                We heard the complainant and Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and evidence placed on record by the parties. We are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. Hence, we accept this complaint and direct OP No.2 to either to replace the mobile hand set with new one of the same model or to refund the sale price of the mobile hand set within 45 days from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.  Apart from it complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2500/- and litigation costs to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by OP No.2. The compensation and the costs may be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. If the orders are not complied within the stipulate period, it shall carry 9% interest p.a. till its realization.

10.              The arguments on the complaint were heard on 02.06.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced                                                                 

    Dated:16.06.2017

                                                                                                (A.P.S.Rajput)        

                                                                                                 President

 

               (Inder Jit)             

                 Member