Haryana

Panchkula

CC/128/2016

R.K JAIN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SNAPDEAL JASPER INFOTECH PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VIJAY GOYAL.

24 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

Raj Kumar Jain resident of House No. 2961, Sector-15, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1. Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III, 246 First Floor, New Delhi-110020, through its Director.

2.       D.T.D.C. Courier & Cargo Ltd., Cabin No. 1 First Floor, SCO No. 14, Sector 11, Panchkula, through its Manager.

                                                                        ...Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

For the Parties:     Mr. Vijay Goyal, Advocate for complainant.

                             Mr. Amit Mahajan, Advocate for OP No. 1.

                             Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate for OP No. 2.  

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complainant-Raj Kumar Jain has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that on 18.03.2016, the complainant placed an order online for purchase of two pairs of Shoes (Nike) Air Max 2016 Sky Blue and Nike Air Max Black running sports shoes. This order was confirmed vide No. 12387869963. On 21.03.2016, the complainant received one pair of shoes packed in snapdeal packing through OP no. 2 and he paid Rs. 7729/- cash vide payment voucher issued by OP No. 2. The complainant opened the package and found that the pair of shoes was not according to his order and he lodged the complaint to OP no. 1 vide reference No. 21175376 and received a reply from OP no. 1, on 21.03.2016 that package would be picked up within one two days and Rs. 7740/- would be credited to his account. On 22.03.2016, the complainant received another e-mail that the item would be picked up by one Guriqbal Singh Mob. No. 98151597123 and the item was picked up on 22.03.2016 by one Gurcharan Singh who handed over reverse pickup sheet. On 23.03.2016, the complainant received another e-mail from OP no. 1 that order for Nike Air Max 2015 black running shoes could not be fulfilled by the seller and they tried to place the order with an alternate seller but were unsuccessful and cancelled the order. The OP No. 1 has not returned the amount of Rs. 7,729/- which was taken from the complainant for the cost of sky blue pair of shoes. The complainant has requested for refund of the amount on 27.03.2016 vide reference No. 211175376 and again on 03.03.2016 and 04.04.2016 but all in vain. The complainant issued legal notice dated 25.04.2016 through registered post to OP No. 1. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op no. 1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that OP No. 1 operates its online market platform under the brand name/trademark “Snapdeal” through the website i.e

The order placed by the complainant was cancelled by the actual seller M/s DKG Enterprises and the products ordered by the complainant were never delivered to him and the copy of invoice was fabricated and has been forged by the complainant as there exists no legal entity called “Snapdeal Plus”. It is submitted that the mail received by the complainant was an auto generated mail from system website and had no relation of whatsoever nature with delivery of product. It appears that the complainant has indulged in a fraudulent activity as he illegally manipulated the facility of “Reverse Pick Up” provided by the OP up before the delivery update. It is submitted that on 18.03.2016, the complainant placed an order on DKG Enterprises, Delhi through the OP No. 1’s website. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of Op no. 1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The Op no. 2 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement and submitted that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP No. 2. It is submitted that the complainant had ordered for the purchase of pair of shoes from OP No. 1,therefore, OP No. 2 has no concern with the matter. It is submitted that no legal notice has been received by the OP No. 2. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of Op no. 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the Op no. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents R1/1 to R1/3 and closed his evidence.
5.  We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully and minutely and also considered the written arguments submitted by OP No. 1.
6. It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant placed an order online for purchase of two pairs of Shoes (Nike) Air Max 2016 Sky Blue and Nike Air Max Black running sports shoes on 18.03.2016. The above said order was confirmed by the OP NO. 1 vide order ID No. 12387869963. On 21.03.2016, the complainant received one pair of shoes packed vide Annexure C-2 and the complainant paid Rs. 7729/-. The allegation of the complainant is that the product sent to him was not according to his order.  As per the complainant he lodged the complaint to OP no. 1 vide reference No. 21175376 and received a reply Annexure C-3 from OP no. 1, on 21.03.2016 that:-

“We’re picking up the Nike Airmax 2016 Sky Blue R… you wish to return

Your package will be picked up within 1-2 days. Once Pickup is completed, we will process the item through our quality team and credit Rs. 7740.0 to your Free Charge Account within 4 days”.

OP No. 1 again sent a Text Message on 22.03.2016 (Annexure C-4) that :-

“Hi! Your Nike Airmax 2016 Sky…. from SNAPDEAL is out for pickup by Guriqbal Singh Ch04c-5717, Mob 9815197123. Please keep the item ready. Nuvoex”.

However, on 22.03.2016, the product was collected by one Gurcharan Singh (Annexure C-5). On 23.03.2016, the OP No. 1 cancelled the order with the reason that they tried to place the order with an ultimate seller but were unsuccessful and had to cancel it. Since, the order placed by the complainant was cancelled but the payment has not been made to the complainant by the Op. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice dated 25.04.2016, but no reply has been received by complainant.

7. The stand taken by the OP No. 1 is that it is neither the seller nor the manufacture and hence not liable for any deficiency in service. The OP No. 1 operates its online marketplace platform under the brandname/trademark “Snapdeal” through the website i.e
8. After going through the documents on record and keeping in view the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the complainant placed order for the product with the opposite party No. 1, which was confirmed by then. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the package would be picked up within one or two days and they would process the item through their quality team and credit Rs. 7,740/- to the complainant four days (Annexure C-3).
9. It is also admitted fact that the product was picked up by the agent of Snapdeal (Annexure C-5) and order was cancelled on 23.03.2016 (Annexure C-6).  It is clear that on the one hand, the Opposite Party no. 1 is saying that it being neither Seller nor Manufacturer is not liable for any deficiency in service and contrary to it, on the other hand, it is offering refund to the Complainant. This dual conduct of the Opposite Party No. 1 proves that it is certainly indulged in unfair trade practice, which has caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant.
10.  Had the Opposite Party No. 1 resolved the grievance of the complainant earlier, in the first instance, there was no occasion for the Complainant to approach this Forum.
11.  The Complainant has urged that since the issue relating to his case           could not be handled properly by the Opposite Party, even after his repeated requests, therefore, he is entitled to be compensated and to be paid the litigation expenses. We find considerable force in this contention. The fact remains that the complainant made various requests to the Opposite Party No. 1 for sorting out his problem. As the problem of the complainant could not be resolved by the Opposite Party No. 1, despite assurances, he was ultimately compelled to file the present complaint before this Forum.  Therefore, we are of the view that there is sufficient evidence on record along with offer of refund by the Opposite Party No. 1, which in itself points out towards deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1. 
12.  

[a]    To refund Rs.7,729/- to the Complainant; 

[b]    To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant;

[c]      To pay a Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation;

13.  The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.[a] & [b] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization.

14. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

24.11.2016           ANITA KAPOOR               DHARAM PAL

                               MEMBER                         PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                           PRESIDENT