1
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.
Consumer Complaint No.68 of 2017
Date of institution: 01.11.2017
Date of decision : 18.03.2019
Hardeep Singh aged about 36, son of Sh. Ajaib Singh R/o Near Bawa Nursing Home W. No.2, Bassi Pathana, Fatehgarh Sahib, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.
……..Complainant
Versus
- Snapdeal Corporate Head Office New Delhi, Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd.246, 1st Floor, Phase-III, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020.
- 362-363, ASF Centre, Udyog Vihar Industrial Area Phase-4, Gurgaon-122016, Near Sector -18.
…..Opposite parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum
Sh. InderJit, Member
Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member
Present : Sh.H.S. Mehta Advcoate, Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Puneet Gupta, Advocate, Counsel for the O.P.’s
-2-
ORDER
Inderjit, Member
Hardeep Singh Complainant has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the Complaint are as under:-
2. The Complainant had ordered on-line an i-Phone-7 from the OPs at his website WWW.Snapdeal.Com on 31.7.2017 vide order I.D.No.24248418081 from snapdeal.com. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.60,610/- through credit card from bank account of his friend Harpreet Singh and received the product through Courier on 05.08.2017 from the O.P.’s. When the complainant opened the aforesaid box, he was very much shocked to find a stone in the box instead of the ordered i-Phone. He took a video of the box and converted into the CD. The complainant registered a request to the O.P.’s that he has not received the required product as it is a fake one and also requested to refund the amount. Despite many requests through e-mails made by the complainant, the O.P.’s did not pay any heed to his requests. The act and conduct of the O.P.’s amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant also got served a legal notice on dated 12.9.2017 upon O.P.’s with a request to refund the amount of Rs.60,610/- i.e. cost of the said mobile to the complainant, but the O.P.’s failed to give any reply of the said legal notice. Hence, he filed this complaint and prayed for directions to the O.P.’s to refund the amount of Rs.60,610/- i.e. the cost of the above said mobile and further to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental tension.
3. The complaint is contested by the O.P.’s who filed their written reply and raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia that; the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties; the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in its present form; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and the present complaint is without cause of action against the OPs and complainant is not a consumer and hence this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, O.P.’s submitted that the O.P.’s operate its online marketplace platform under the brand name/trademark “snapdeal” through the website i.e. www.snapdeal.com. The website is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sales transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end consumers. Therefore, the O.P.’s have nothing to do with the sale of any product. The product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by OPs. In the present complaint, the seller of the product was “Bathla Teletech Pvt. Ltd”. The OPs have no role to play in the entire transaction of sale and purchase that took place between the complainant & the seller of the product except to provide a common platform to both the parties i.e. the purchaser and the seller. It is only a marketplace where different manufacturers or companies put up advertisements of their manufactured goods. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence Box with stone Ex. C-1, along with CD as Ex.C-2, original bill Ex.C-3, Legal notice dated 12.9.2017, Ex. C-4, postal receipts Ex. C-5 and his affidavit Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal, the O.P.’s tendered in evidence affidavit of Ankita Sharma Ex.O.P.1, true copies of documents i.e. press note issued by DIPP Ex.O.P.2, term and conditions Ex.O.P.3, judgement Mark-A and closed the evidence.
5. Learned Counsel for the parties advanced their arguments. Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had ordered online to the Snapdeal for the purchase of aforesaid i-Phone which was delivered to him in a box wrapped in a paper carrying the name of Snapdeal. On opening the said box, the complainant was shocked to find a stone instead of an ordered i-Phone in it. Learned Counsel further argued that thereafter the complainant sent E-mails as well as legal notice to the O.P.’s but failed to hear anything from their end. He further pointed out that O.P.’s now have, in their reply, informed that Snapdeal is only a market place for advertising the products of different manufacturers, but has no responsibility with regard to the safe delivery of the product to the consumer and its after-sale gurantee/warrantee. Learned Counsel further argued that the complainant does not know who “ Bathla Teletech Pvt. Ltd.” is; he had placed the order with the “Snapdeal” only and thus the complainant has a grievance against Snapdeal only. As per Snapdeal reply, the money was transferred to “ Bathla Teletech Pvt. Ltd.”; may be, but it was transferred on the behest of Snapdeal. Moreover, the Counsel argued that the Complainant had ordered online to Sanpdeal a mobile in question i.e. i-Phone but he received a stone instead of a i-Phone. That is to say that whatever he had ordered online to Snapdeal, he did not get the samething and hence Snapdeal is wholly and solely responsible for the originality of the product, correctness of the product, safe and timely delivery of the product ordered. In case, Snapdeal feels that the seller is to refund the cost of said mobile – that is inter-se between the Snapdeal and the seller of the products which are being sold through Snapdeal. It cannot shoulder off the responsibility. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Snapdeal to refund the amount. The Learned Counsel further prayed for acceptance of complaint against O.P.’s for refund of Rs.60610/- i.e. the cost of said mobile and payment of Rs.30,000/- on account of compensation for harassment etc.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the OPs argued that OPs is an electronic market platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sales transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end consumers. Once a user accepts the offer of sale of the products made by the third party seller on the website, the seller is intimated electronically and is required to ensure that the products are made available and delivered in accordance with the delivery terms. The sellers directly raise invoices to the final customers for the products sold and bear all commercial risks. The customers make payment of the product purchased directly to the sellers. Ld. counsel argued that seller of the product is, therefore, responsible for delivery of goods to the customers. He further argued that as per invoice (Ex.C-3) “Bathla Teletech Pvt. Ltd.”is the seller of the product in question but complainant has failed to implead the aforesaid seller of the product as a necessary opposite party. Ld. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of non-joinder of aforesaid necessary party.
7. We have heard oral arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through all the documents placed on record by the parties. We are of the opinion that arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant have force in it. Hence we agree with the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. In view of this, we accept this complaint against the Opposite parties. Definitely, the complainant has not received the ordered product i.e. he had ordered an i-Phone through Snapdeal but got a stone instead. Therefore, the cost of said mobile i.e. Rs.60,610/- is required to be refunded to the complainant who is also held entitled to Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for harassment etc. The O.P.’s are, therefore, directed to refund Rs.60,610/- i.e. the cost of the said mobile and also Rs.20,000/- compensation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till its payment. Needless to say, the O.P.’s are at liberty to recover the aforesaid amount from the seller.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 12.03.2019 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: 18.03.2019.
(InderJit)
Member
(Yuvinder Singh Matta)
Member
