Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/144/2019

Sudhir Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Snapdeal private limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	144 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	20.03.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	17.02.2020

 

 

 

 

1]  Sudhir Kumar Sharma son of Sh.Ishwar Chandra, Resident of House No.1267-A, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh.

2]  Anmol Attry (to the authority of Sudhir Kumar Sharma being transferred) son of Suidhir Kumar Sharma, Resident of House No.1267-A, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh.

  

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Snapdeal Private Limited, addressed to CEO or Chairperson, Head Office-362-363, ASF Centre, Udyog Vihar Industrial Area, Phase-4, Gurgaon 122016 Near Sector 18. 

2]  Shreeji Enterprises, addressed to Priprietor, Ground Floor, Shop No.5, Opp. Mugal Palace, near Anglo School, Muglisara Muglisara City Surate/State Gujrat (24)

   ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

                                        

 

For Complainant :    Complainant No.2 in person.

For OPs         :    Sh.Dilpreet Singh, Adv. for OP No.1.

OP No.2 exparte.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Succinctly put, the complainant ordered a Watch on 2.1.2019 at the site of OP No.1, which was supplied by OP No.2 against payment of Rs.1599/- (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that the site of OP No.1 mentions that the said watch belongs to G-SHOCK Series, which is a product manufactured by Casio India Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Ann.C-2).  It is also averred that the company also provide manufacturer warranty of 2 years on the said Watch (Ann.C-3 & C-4).  It is stated that the complainant gifted the said Watch to his friend on his birthday, who after 2 weeks of use, reported an issue ‘the watch hour’s hand fully dismantled and was free from its working’. Accordingly, the OP No.1 was contacted, who advised to contact manufacturer (Casio).  Then the complainant visited National Watch House, SCO 23, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh (where the warranty claims of Casio Watches are entertained).  However, the National Watch House, SCO 23, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, denied/refused to repair the said watch stating it to be ‘No Casio Product”.  The complainant reported the matter to OP No.1 a number of times apprising that he has been sold a fake watch, but it did not pay any heed. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The OP No.1 has filed reply stating that the website of the OP No.1 is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sales transaction between independent third party sellers and independent end consumers and once a user accepts the offer of sale of the product 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 is submitted that the actual seller who display the products makes offer for sale to visitors of the website, accepts order placed by the buyers and finally makes delivery of the ordered products accompanied with the offer issued by the seller to the buyers.  It is also submitted that the sellers directly raise invoices to the final customers for the product sold and hear all commercial risks and the ultimate monetary beneficiary of such sale proceedings is the seller and not the OP No.1. It is submitted that the operations of the OP No.1 is akin to shopping mall wherein different independent third party sellers advertise, showcase and offer their products for sale to third party buyers, who visit the mall and in case of any defect in the goods sold by such sellers in the shopping mall, it is the seller, who is held liable for the consequences and not the owner of the shopping mall. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         OP No.2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 3.6.2019.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant No.2 in person and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       Annexure C-1 (Tax Invoice Page 9) evidents that the complainant placed an Online order for ‘Men Fashion Black Shock Resistant Sports Watch G317 – Black G Shock’ with Opposite Parties and it has duly been delivered to him. It is also proved vide Annexure C-3 (Screen Shot of Online Portal of OP No.1) that the Watch so ordered & delivered to the complainant carries 2 years International Manufacturer Warranty. It is undisputed that the Watch in question is being manufactured by Casio Company. 

 

6]       The grouse of the complainant is that when the said watch encountered with problem, it was taken to authorized service centre/dealer of Casio Company i.e. National Watch House, SCO 23, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, who denied the repair giving remarks ‘No Casio Product’.  The complainant contended that he has been supplied a fake Watch by OPs under the name of Casio Company. 

 

7]       From the available record and in the absence of any contrary evidence, it is proven fact that the complainant has been delivered fake Watch of Casio Company and as such its repair has been denied by authorized service centre/dealer of Casio Company i.e. National Watch House, SCO 23, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh (Ann.C-6)

 

8]       The delivering of a fake item i.e. Watch in question projecting it to be of Casio Company product, clearly constitutes gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties, which certainly caused the complainant mental agony and harassment and forced him to enter into avoidable litigation.  Therefore, the complainant deserves to be adequately compensated. 

 

9]       The Opposite Party No.1 took stand that there is no privity of contract with the complainant, as it merely provides an online marketplace where the independent third party sellers can list their products for sale; therefore, the sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listing of products on the website and Opposite Party is neither responsible for the product that are listed on the website by various third party sellers’ as well as their delivery.  Such a plea of Opposite Party is totally untenable and baseless.

 

         The consumer(s) place order using the website Opposite Party No.1 with a hope that it will get good bargain and better products, but their faith shatters when they are not provided with better quality products and sometimes are delivered with the products which comes out to be fake product as has also happened in the present case.  The Opposite Party No.1 cannot escape from its liability stating that it is not the manufacturer of the product and only provides portal for sale, because the Opposite Party No.1 allows the companies to project their products for sale on their portal, so it is their legal obligation to keep a check for the sale of genuine products sold through their portal services. 

 

10]      It is further observed that the OP No.2, who is the seller of the Watch in question, did not come forward to contradict the allegations set out in the present complaint despite being duly served. As such all the pleas of the complainant against OP No.2 have gone unrebutted and unchallenged in its absence. Averments/allegations supported with duly sworn affidavit establish the deficiency as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.2 as well.

 

11]      Keeping in view the facts & circumstance of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 is proved.  Therefore, the present complaint is allowed and the Opposite parties No.1 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1599/- to the complainant.   The Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and litigation expenses, on account of rendering deficient services coupled with unfair trade practice and thrusting avoidable litigation upon the complainant.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

17^th February, 2020                         

                                                                                      Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER