DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR

Complaint No.293 of 2017 Date of Instt. 17.08.2017 Date of Decision: 20.04.2021

Deepak Kapoor, S/o Shri. Pritam Lal Kapoor, r/o Wx-23, Old Dusshera Ground Near, Arya Kanaya, Jalandhar.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. Snap Deal, 362-363, ASF Centre Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Phase 4, Gurgaon (Gurugram) Near Sector 18 122001.

2. SAJM TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MAA-Periya-VI, Warehouse A, Periyapalayam Road, Village No. 107. Bandikavanoor Village, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, 6000067. (Seller)

3. Vulcan Express, AFF TOWER-A, Plot No. 249 D, Jawala Mill Road, Udyog Vihar Phase-IV, Gurgaon, 122016.

..…Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM:

SH. KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SMT. JYOTSNA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY:

For Complainant : Sh.Lakhan Gandhi, Advocate

For OPs no.1&2 : Exparte

For OP no.3 : Sh.Jatinder Arora

ORDER:-

Per KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that OP no.1 is a online website namely Snapdeal who connects the buyers with the seller, OP no.2 is a dealer who sold his goods to the buyers through the medium of OP no.1 website, OP no.3 is company who provides courier facility to the OP no.3 and the snapdeal box was delivered to me by representative of OP no.3. He had purchased one Smart Phone Mobile Make “LeEco Le2” of 32 GB at a sum of Rs.10,450/- from online shopping website namely “Snapdeal” OP no.1 and transfer the full payment though his bank credit card at the time of purchase. At the time of purchasing of the above mentioned smartphone, OP no.1 and OP no.2 who was the original seller, had specifically mentioned in their website that of selling the original and genuine products, as after being the assurance on the website of the snap deal of delivering the genuine product, he had ordered one smartphone on 11.05.2017 and after placing the order OP no.1 send an email to him on 11.05.2017 for the confirmation of the order with order ID 19009715305. On the same day i.e. 11.05.2017, OP no.1 send email to him at 4.20 pm that LeEco Le2 32Gb is ready to be shipped. On 12.05.2017, OP no.1 send email to him at his mail id and mentioned that smart phone ordered by the complainant is packed and shipped through courier and it will reached by 18.05.2017. On 14.05.2017, OP no.1 send email to complainant at his email address that smart phone will be delivered to him on or before 18.05.2017. On 14.05.2017 OP no.1 send email to him at his mail and mentioned that if the buyer wish to return the product the OP no.1 is having easy returns offer. After placing the order, OP no.1 and OP no.2 through OP no.3 which is courier company had got delivered the packed box on 14.05.2017 sealed with snapdeal label to complainant. After delivery of the said box he had opened the box and then he got surprised to see that there was the marble stone inside the box instead of smartphone ordered. He within an hour of receiving the box from OP no.3 emailed to snap deal /OP no.1 and mentioned in email that he had received the marble stone instead of smart phone in the box, which was delivered by OP no.3. Then he got received an email from OP no.1 in which it was mentioned that his complaint has been registered and complaint no. is 41906122 and assured him that complaint will be resolved in 24 hours. After registering the complaint, OP no.1 send email to complainant on 14.05.2017 that based on our conversation and told don’t worry our service engineer will visit you soon to check your item and resolve the issue. After registration of complaint, OP no.1 on 15.05.2017 marked a visit at the house of the complainant where engineer of OP no.1 after conducting enquiry make report via job sheet and mentioned that complainant had received marble stone instead of mobile and hand over the signed copy of job sheet to him. On 15.05.2017, OP no.1 again send email to complainant and requested that attach the images of box received by him. After receiving the email from complainant OP no.1 replied him on 16.05.2017 that please accept our apologies for inconvenience. On same day i.e. 16.05.2017 OP again email to complainant and mentioned that the service engineer visited the complainant and resolved the matter, after updating the status by OP no.1 complainant again emailed to OP no.1 that issue is not solved yet and to collect the marble stone along with box delivered by OP no.3 and to refund the complainant money. On 19.05.2017 mail was received by OP no.1 and told that they have generated for refund and assured him that he will receive his refund in his bank account within 7-10 days. On 22.05.2017 OP no.1 again emailed to him that his request does not pass the internal checks and OP no.1 also suspending his account on snap deal and OP no.1 will not initiate his client refund back. On 23.05.2017 the complainant replied to OP no1. Via email that complainant had followed all the procedure of snap deal and also engineer of OP no.1 had also remarked in his report that complainant has received the marble stone instead of smart phone then after OPs no.1 and 2 committed fraud and then OP no.1 did not replied for the same. OP no.1 openly threatened him that they will not gave single money to him and do whatever he want to do then the complainant sent legal notice to OP nos.1,2 and 3 but no reply was given by them. Due to act and conduct of OPs, he has filed the present complaint and prayed that OPs be directed to pay value of mobile make “LeEco Le2” OF 32 GB along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of job sheet till the date of realization, besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.

2. Notice sent to OPs no.1 and 2 through registered AD on 23.08.2017 but neither registered cover nor acknowledgment received back nor any person appeared on behalf of OP no.1. Period of thirty days have elapsed But none has appeared on behalf of OP no.1. As such, OP no.1 is proceeded against exparte on 26.09.2017. While, registered cover of OP no.2 received back with report “Refused”, none has appeared on behalf of OP no.2. As such, OP no.2 is also proceeded against exparte.

3. OP no.3 appeared and filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by averring that OP no.3 is company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 and dealing in the business of providing end to end logistics and supply chain solutions to ecommerce industry in India. OP no.3 is not responsible for the quality of the product or packet because OP no.3 only receive the product form its clients and delivery it to the address of the purchaser. OP no.3 is neither necessary nor proper party and has wrongly impleaded in the present case. OP no.3 is not in a position to take any liability related to product. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP no.3 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-69 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OP no.3 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Uma Mishra Associate Director Legal a Ex.OP-3/A.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as written arguments filed by OPs.

6. The glance of evidence is required by us for settlement of the case in hand. The complainant has relied upon his affidavit Ex.CA on the record. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Ex.C-1 is copy of legal notice served upon OPs. Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 are postal receipts thereof. Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-11 are photographs of the box in question. Ex.C-12 & Ex.C-13 are bills of the mobile. Ex.C-14 is job sheet dated 15.05.2017. Ex.C-15 is email addressed to complainant. Ex.C-16 to Ex.C-59 are copies of emails of different dates. Ex.C-60 to Ex.C-69 are copies of statements of HDFC Bank of different dates.

7. To refute this evidence of the complainant, OP no.3 relied upon affidavit of Uma Mishra Associate Director Legal as Ex.OP-3/A on the record. This witness denied any deficiency on the part of OP no.3.

8. It is an admitted fact that an order for purchase of Smart Phone mobile Make “LeEco Le2” of 32 GB from online shopping website namely “Snapdeal” OP no.1 and transfer the full payment through his bank credit card at the time of purchase. It is also not disputed that the complainant paid Rs.10,450/- through his credit card. It is also admitted that complainant received the courier on 11.05.2017. From the perusal of photographs Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-11, it is also clear that when the complainant opened box there was not any smart phone in it but there was marble stone in the box. Then complainant lodged return request of product and sent various emails to OPs with the request to refund the amount but with no result.

9. Learned counsel for the OP no.3 submitted that OP no.3 is dealing in the business of providing end-to-end logistics and supply chain solutions to ecommerce industry in India. OP no.3 is not responsible for the product given by OP no.1 and it has just provided the services of the courier. OP no.3 is not a position to take any liability related to the product. OP no.3 denied any deficiency in service on its part.

10. When payment of Rs.10,450/- is not disputed or denied by OPs, it cannot be said that when the complainant has received a piece of marble/stone in place of Le-Eco Le2 of 32 GB Mobile Phone ordered by him, his hard earned money cannot be allowed to be digested by the OPs. It is admitted by the opposite parties that it is required to ensure that the products are made available and delivered in accordance to the delivery terms as set out by the seller as part of the terms for sale displayed on the websites. But opposite parties has not placed on record any document that in which way it ensured that product has been made available or delivered in accordance to delivery terms. It is also not the case of the OPs that product was duly delivered to OPs. Rather, opposite parties have taken plea that seller is responsible for any lapse or mis delivery. Although, the seller of the product is Sajm Trading Private Limited/OP no.2. But when on common platform, opposite party no.1 is receiving orders, transmitting amount of orders to the seller, it is also bounded duty of opposite party no.2 to make sure delivery of the product. When the product was not delivered to the complainant and said act was brought to notice of OPs, it was duty of the OPs to take up the matter with seller for refund of hard earned money of complainant. But no such steps were ever taken by any of the OPs. Hence, it appears that opposite parties no.1 and 2 by launching a electronic platform for sellers who are making befool the innocent people of our society, is having hands in glove with such like sellers for grabbing hard earned money of people. It is not understood, as to why opposite parties have hesitated in conveying emails of complainant regarding refund of amount to the seller.

11. If such like practice is allowed to the companies running online marketplace, it would be very hazardous for the common people and they will be continuously looted by such like companies. The very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide better protection of the interest of consumers, to promote and protect the rights of consumers such as, “The right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property; the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumers against unfair trade practice; the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to an authority of good at competitive prices; the right to be heard and to be assured that consumers interest will receive due consideration at appropriate forums; the right to seek Redressal against unfair trade practice or unscrupulous exploitation of consumer”.

12. It is clearly established that after paying an amount of Rs.10,450/- complainant merely received a piece of marble/stone in the box. All this shows that there is unscrupulous exploitation of the consumer and such line online marketplaces and sellers by placing their hands in one glove by adopting unfair means and trade practice are looting the general public at large. Such like practice is required to be stopped and right of the consumer to be heard is to be keep in existence.

13. OP no.1 delivered the parcel at the address of the complainant, this fact is clear from Ex.C-15 copy of email placed on the record. OP no.1 received amount of Rs.10,450/- through online, this is clear from copy of email Ex.C-16 on the record. The complainant received the parcel on 11.05.2017 at 4.20 PM as per copy of email Ex.C-17 on the record. The cost of the mobile in question is Rs.11549/- as per retail invoice Ex.C-21 on the record. OP no.1 addressed email to complainant in which it has been specifically mentioned that we are eager to resolve your concern and will contact you within a maximum of 24 hours. Further, in email dated 14.05.2017 wherein it has been mentioned that “our service engineer will visit soon to check your item and resolve the issue described by you.”. But after that OPs failed to solve the problem of the complainant, this act of OPs prove negligence on their part. Emails Ex.C-27 to Ex.C-31 addressed to complainant by OPs, from perusal these emails it clear that OPs sent various emails to complainant but they failed to solve the problem of complainant. From perusal of photographs clippings Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-11, it reveals that the complainant has received piece of marble instead of mobile phone from OPs. The complainant requested OPs various times for refund of the amount of the mobile in question but of no use. In email dated 15.05.2017 Ex.C-35 addressed to complainant by OP no.1 mentioned that “please accept our apologies for the inconvenience you have experienced. We are working on query and assure you that we will response you as soon as we have a resolution. From perusal of this email Ex.C-35 it reveals that OP no.1 has taken the responsibility of his own wrongs from complainant through email. In email dated 19.05.2017 Ex.C-45 OP no.1 informed the complainant that it have initiated for refund within 7-10 business days. But OP no.1 failed to refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant. Ex.C-45 is email dated 23.05.2017 sent to complainant by OP no.1 in which it has been mentioned that “we have initiated a refund within 7-10 days,” this document proves the default on the part of OP no.1. After that, the complainant sent email dated 23.05.2017 to OP no.1 in which it has been mentioned that “I have received stone in order delivered by you instead of mobile phone and your team assured me full refund of the money which I have been paid in advance by credit card. But OP no.1 failed to do so. OP no.1 is an online website namely Snapdeal, who connect the buyers with the seller and OP o.2 is a deliver who sold the goods to buyers. So, we are of the view that OPs no.1 and 2 both are liable for refund to complainant.

14. Sequel to the above discussion and taking all the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the present complaint is allowed and opposite parties no.1 and 2 jointly and severally are directed to refund the actual amount paid by the complainant to the tune of Rs. 10,450/- of the mobile set “LeEco Le2” (32GB) to the complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of delivery of parcel by the complainant till actual realization and also to pay Rs.5000/- for causing mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses to him. OPs No. 1 and 2 are further directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3000/- in the Consumer legal aid account of this Commission and stop such like practice in future. Compliance of the be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. The case could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and spread of Covid-19.

16. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

20^th of April 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)