BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI MAMIDI CHRISTOPHER,
PRESIDENT.
SRI K.VINODH REDDY,
MEMBER.
. . .
THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY, 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 33 OF 2016
Between:
Sai Krishna Manthena, #658, Main Road, Beside: Devasthanam
Toll Gate, Yadagirigutta, Nalgonda-508 115.
…COMPLAINANT.
AND
Snapdeal.com, #238, First Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-3,
New Delhi-110 020. Represented through its C.E.O.
…OPPOSITE PARTY.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on this day, in the presence of the Complainant and in the presence of Sri A.Narendar Rao, Advocate for the Opposite Party, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
ORDER OF THE FORUM DELIVERED
BY SRI MAMIDI CHRISTOPHER, PRESIDENT
1. This complaint is filed by Sri Sai Krishna Manthena, U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite Party to pay him a sum of Rs.1,69,071/- with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of placing the order, Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony along with costs of Rs.30,000/-.
2. The facts leading to file this complaint are as follows:
As per the Complainant he booked a Lakshmi Gold Coin with M/s Caratlane Trading Private Limited, weighing 50 grams with 24 carrot purity and 995 Fineness through the Opposite Party, i.e. Snapdeal.com
Contd…2
-2-
on 25/07/2016 vide order No.14362063782. For the above said order of Lakshmi Gold Coin, the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,69,071/- to the Opposite Party through online. The Lakshmi Gold Coin was delivered to the Complainant by the Opposite Party through Ecom Express Courier with AWB No.155093834 on 1-8-2016 at 06:12:10 IST.
3. On opening the parcel by the Complainant, he noticed that the Lakshmi Gold Coin which was sent by the Opposite Party was not same as the order he placed. The Gold Coin delivered by the Opposite Party shows that one side there was Lakshmi and the other side there was Ganesh. On observing the same, the Complainant informed the Opposite Party about the mismatching of the gold coin on 04-08-2016 at about 01:01 a.m. and requested the Opposite Party to take back the Gold Coin and send another gold coin as per the order placed before by replacing.
4. The representative of the Opposite Party had collected the said gold coin on 13-08-2016 at 2-00 p.m., by promising that they will send the gold coin as he ordered initially. The returned gold coin had reached the Opposite Party on 26-08-2016.
5. The replacement order was generated in the website with sub-order No.18512579240. For the same, the Opposite Party had delivered a replaced gold coin through Ecom Express Courier with AWB No.156632607 on 31-8-2016 at 08:17:42 p.m. On opening the parcel, the Complainant noticed that the Opposite Party had sent again
Contd…3
-3-
a wrong product gold coin which had idols of Lakshmi and Ganesh back and back, other than original order placed by the Complainant which should be only Lakshmi idol.
6. Again the Complainant had informed the Opposite Party about sending of the wrong gold coin and requested the Opposite Party to take back the gold coin, and refund the amount he paid originally. And generated a website, refund request, reference No.28807164 on 02-09-2016 at about 4-30 p.m. The representative of the Opposite Party approached the Complainant and received back the wrong gold coin delivered and promised to refund the amount, he paid initially. Inspite of so many requests, the Opposite Party did not pay back the initial amount paid by him. For that the Complainant sent a notice to the Opposite Party on 22-09-2016 reminding the Opposite Party to refund the amount he paid. As there was no response, this complaint.
7. The Opposite Party filed its written version stating that it is only a web portal, wherein the products are sold by the third party directly to the customers. The above said web portal is run by Jasper Infotech Private Limited.
8. The Complainant actually made a purchase placement with the actual seller, i.e. M/s CaratLane Trading Private Limited, and the amount was paid to him by online and this seller is not included as party in this complaint. Hence the complaint may be dismissed on the part of the Opposite Party, for non-joinder of necessary party.
9. Exs.A-1 to A-11 are marked on behalf of the Complainant.
Contd…4
-4-
10. The points for consideration are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer or not?
- Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain
this complaint?
3) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the
Opposite Party?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs he
claimed?
11. PONT No.1:
As agreed by the Opposite Party that the said Snapdeal web portal is owned by Jasper Infotech Private Limited and the web portal is offering number of products by its portal to the buyers and this portal is available by internet mostly in every corner of the country from where a customer can place an order. In this complaint, the Complainant had placed order through the net portal which is run by Jasper Infotech Private Limited and, therefore, he is a consumer of the said web portal, i.e. Snapdeal.
12. PONT No.2:
As it is said by the Opposite Party that it is having registered office address at: 238, 1st Floor, Okhla Phase-III, New Delhi, basing on that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
13. As agreed by the Opposite Party that it is owned by Jasper Infotech Private Limited and it itself being a web portal which is available on net, and this net is available throughout the country mostly in every corner from where a consumer/customer can place an
Contd…5
-5-
order. In this complaint, the Complainant had placed an order to M/s CaratLane Trading Private Limited through Snapdeal web portal which is owned by Jasper Infotech Private Limited, the product gold coin is to be delivered to Sai Krishna, H.No.658, Beside: Tollgate, Water Tank, Nalgonda, TG, Pin:508 115, Telangana as per Ex.A-1, with an endorsement by the Snapdeal that “we have packed it with care and shipped it through our courier, and it will reach you on or before 7th August, 2016”. As this being the reply by the Snapdeal to the complaint where the product gold coin is to be delivered in Nalgonda District, and the product gold coin is delivered at the aforesaid place. On opening the parcel, the Complainant found that the product gold coin delivered to him was not the same as ordered. The cause of action arised from that time and place. Hence, this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
14. PONT No.3:
Before going into the merits of this complaint, we shall refer to the decision made by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.697/2016 between Snapdeal Vs.Nikhil Bansal, which is placed before us by Opposite Party, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission opined as below:
“In our opinion if Snapdeal by itself is a legal entity, the complaint should have disclosed as to whether it was a proprietorship, partnership company, society or other legal entity. In case it is a proprietorship, the Complainant ought to have disclosed its name of its
Contd…6
-6-
proprietor. In case it is a company it can be only a private limited or a
limited company in which case its name would be Snapdeal Pvt.Ltd./Snapdeal Ltd. Therefore, we have absolutely no hesitation in holding that the complaint as framed before the District Forum was clearly not maintainable in law. The District Forum instead of asking the Complainant/Respondent to disclose the legal status of the Snapdeal, chose to decide the complaint on merits. As far as the State Commission is concerned, the appeal was not considered on merits and was dismissed holding that it was barred by limitation.”
“Ordinarily, instead of deciding the complaint on merits, we would have remitted the matter back to the State Commission or the District Forum to decide the complaint, but, since the parties have agreed that we may decide the complaint at our level, we have proceeded to adopt the aforesaid course of action. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of the Complainant filing an appropriate complaint against a legal entity. If a fresh complaint is filed, the Complainant will also be entitled to seek condonation of delay if any, in filing the said complaint on account of previous complaint filed by him.”
15. PONT No.4:
In view of the above observations, the Complainant cannot claim any relief on Snapdeal as it being only a web portal. No relief can be awarded in this complaint.
Contd…7
-7-
In the result, it is however made clear that the dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of the Complainant filing an appropriate complaint against a legal entity. If a fresh complaint is filed, the Complainant will also be entitled to seek condonation of delay if any, in filing the said complaint on account of previous complaint filed by him.
The complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 20th day of July, 2017.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant: For Opposite Party:
Affidavit of the Complainant. None.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A-1 Dt.28/07/2016 Snapdeal Order (Email).
Ex.A-2 Dt.01/08/2016 Order Delivery Confirmation Email
sent by the Opposite Party.
Ex.A-3 Dt.04/08/2016 Email sent by the Opposite Party
confirming the replacement request
for wrong product supplied.
Ex.A-4 Dt.12/08/2016 Email sent by the Opposite Party
confirming the pickup of the wrong product.
Ex.A-5 Dt. Pickup acknowledgment.
Ex.A-6 Dt. Details of Replacement order generated.
Contd…8
-8-
Ex.A-7 Dt.02/09/2016 Email sent by the Opposite Party confirming
the refund request of the wrong product.
Ex.A-8 Dt.03/09/2016 Email sent by the Opposite Party
confirming the pickup of the wrong product.
Ex.A-9 Dt. Pickup acknowledgment.
Ex.A-10 Dt.21/09/2016 Final Notice sent to the Opposite Party
by the Complainant.
Ex.A-11 Dt. Postal Receipt (Track Consignment).
For Opposite Party:
Nil.
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
NALGONDA
TO
1). Sri Sai Krishna Manthena (Complainant).
2). The Opposite Party.
