BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint no.108/2016.
Date of instt. 07.04.2016.
Date of Decision: 23.05.2017.
Azad Singh son of Sube Singh resident of village Danger Tehsil & District Fatehabad Haryana.
..Complainant.
Versus
1.Snapdeal, Jespar Infotech Private Limited, 246 Phase-III, Okhala Industrial Area New Delhi 110020.
2.Emsons INC 11C,Udyog Kendra Near New Holland tractor factory City Noida (utter Pradesh) Pin 201306.
3.Malhotra Electronics Private Limited 11-C Ecotech-III, Udyog Kendra, Greater Noida, UP, India.
..Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Before Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for OP No.1.
Opposite parties no.2 & 3 exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that he had purchased one TV set from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.15,899/- on 13.03.2015 and the consideration was paid through credit card of the complainant. The purchased TV set was delivered to the complainant through Blue Dart Courier services on 16th March, 2016 which and the said TV set was having one year full guarantee/warrantee. It has been further averred that the TV set worked properly for 1-2 days the same was not having the features as shown on the website and it was having problem qua unable to cast screen from Iphone and Ipad, Problem with sound system, unable to attach keyboard and mouse and unable to login in google services. It has been further averred that the customer care had also assured that if the complainant gets five star ratings then he would also be entitled for free power bank. The complainant made a telephonic call to the customer care (18002701170) therefore, OP No.3 visited the complainant and said that there is manufacturing defect in the TV and it cannot be repaired. The complainant again made a telephonic call to the OP No.3 (H.S.Khaan + 91-7351353820) but his grievance could not be redressed. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure 7 and documents Annexure 1 to Annexure 6, Annexure 8 & Annexure 8A.
2. On presentation of the complaint, notice of the same was issued to the opposite parties.
3. Opposite party No.1 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing reply wherein it has been submitted that it acts as a common market place to facilitate the sellers to list their goods and buyer’s to access goods from multiple sellers through its website www.snapdeal.com and 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 to the delivery terms as set out by the seller as part of the terms for sale displayed on the website. It has been further submitted that OP No.1 acts as intermediary and it does not sell any product directly or indirectly and the sellers directly raises invoices to the final customers for the products sold an bear all commercial risks, therefore, only seller is liable for the consequences. The product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by the OP No.1; therefore, it has no role play because OP No.1 is a market model of e-commerce and any warranty/guarantee of goods relate to the seller and only seller is responsible for delivery of goods to the customers. It has been further submitted that OP No.1 neither offers nor provides any assurance to the end buyers of the product and the ultimate monetary beneficiary of the sale proceedings is the seller and not the OP No.1. The product in question has not been sold by OP No.1, therefore, it has no role to play in providing warranty of the product sold by an independent seller through the website of OP No.1. It has been further averred that OP No.1 is neither a trader nor a service provider as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OP No.1 has not charged anything from the complainant for using its website. The contract for sale of the product is a bipartite contract between buyer and the seller. It has been further averred that the grievance of the complainant should have been only against the manufacturer of the product, or the authorized service centre or against the seller of the product because the Op No.1 has only acted as an intermediary and intermediary is exempted under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 from any liability arising from any transaction entered into by any third parties through the intermediary’s website. Other contents made in the complaint have been contorverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. The OP Nos.2 & 3 did not appear before this Forum despite issuance of notice through registered cover and were proceeded against exparte. In evidence, the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit of Mr.Shine Joy as Annexure R1 documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R4.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OP Nos.1 & 3 and have perused the case file carefully.
5. Perusal of Annexure 1 reveals that the complainant had purchased a TV from OP No.2 for a consideration of Rs.15899/- which the complainant had received through courier. The complainant in support of his averments has tendered his affidavit Annexure 7 wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. According to the complainant, the TV was not having the features which were shown on the website portal of OP No.1 and he has specifically mentioned in his complaint that the matter was brought into the notice of OPs and complaint regarding this was also lodged on customer care 18002701170 but his grievance was not redressed. The complainant has also testified on oath that the TV set worked properly in accordance with the printed instructions but thereafter it developed multiple problems such as unable to cast screen from Iphone and Ipad, Problem with sound system, unable to attach keyboard and mouse and unable to login in google services. From the material available on the case file it is ample clear that there is no specific allegations against the Op No.1 because it has acted as intermediary service provider and as per Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 the service of the Op No.1 is exempted and only the seller is liable for any discrepancy qua the sold product. It is strange that OP Nos.2 & 3 after selling the product in question did not bother to redress the grievance of the complainant forcing him to approach this Forum and even they remained absent from this Forum resulting into their exparte . The allegations made by the complainant has gone unrebutted, therefore, we have no hitch to reach a conclusion that the present complaint deserves acceptance against Op Nos.2 & 3 only. Hence, the present complaint against OP Nos.1 is dismissed and allowed against Op Nos.2 & 3 with a direction to refund the price of the TV in question i.e. Rs.15,899/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the OP Nos.2 & 3 to pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- in lump sum to the complainant for harassment and mental agony etc. This order should be complied within a period of one month, failing which the above said amount of Rs.15,899/- will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate legal action against the OP Nos.2 & 3. The complainant is directed to deposit the TV along with its accessories to the OP Nos.2 & 3. File be consigned to the record after due compliance. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of costs.
Announced in open Forum:
Dt.23.05.2017. (Raghbir Singh)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
(R.S Panghal)
Member
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
