Complaint filed on: 19.07.2016
Complaint Disposed on:17.08.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.81/2016
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
R.D.Prakashchand,
S/o Late Devichand,
Aged about 41 years,
Near Ganapathi Temple,
M.G.Road, Chikmagalur.
(By Sri/Smt. Gerald Dias, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT/S:
1.Snapdeal.Com,
246, 1st floor,
Okhla Industrial Area,
Phasfe-III, Delhi-110020.
Represented by;
(a)Sri Kunal Bahl, (C.E.O)
(b) Sri Prakash Yadav,
(Grievance officer)
2.Jasper Infotech Pvt. Limited,
362, 263, ASF Center, Phase-4,
Sec-18, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016.
(OP-1 -Exparte)
(OP-2 By Sri/Smt. H.P.Vishwanatha, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP 1 and 2 alleging deficiency in service in not delivering the Micromax 50C 4400 FHD 124 CM (49) Full HD LED Television after booking. Hence, prays for direction against Op 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.31,865/- which was paid towards purchase of the said television along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service and other miscellaneous expenses in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant had placed an order with Op 1 for purchase of Micromax 50C 4400 FHD 124 CM (49) Full HD LED Television cost of Rs.31,865/- on 20.08.2015. The said order was placed to Op 1 and 2 through online, since the order was placed on website of the Op 1 the amount of Rs.31,865/- was paid through business platinum credit card issued by HDFC Bank bearing No.4577 0410 0122 as per their instructions. The said amount was credited to Op 1 on the same day i.e., on 20.08.2015 and immediately complainant received the SMS with respect to credit of the said amount to his registered mobile No.9964596044. The complainant also received an e-mail to that effect. After payment of the said amount to Op 1 the same amount is debited from his account along with processing fee.
After payment of the said amount the complainant also received the SMS and e-mail confirming the order placed by complainant and assured to deliver the television at the earliest time. Later the Op 1 had sent the SMS for cancelling the order placed by complainant without any reason but the amount which was already credited to the account of the Op 1 and the said Op is confirmed the order and they assured to supply the television. After receiving the said SMS and e-mail complainant corresponded with Op 1 to refund the amount paid towards purchase of the television, but Op 1 though promised to return the said amount did not refunded. Hence, Op 1 and 2 rendered deficiency in service in not refunding an amount paid towards purchase of the television.
The complainant had paid the said amount through the credit card issued by HDFC Bank, the said HDFC Bank has collected the said amount by way of installments and also interest from the date of debit from the account. Hence, complainant suffered financial loss due to non-refund of the said amount. The complainant has requested the Op 1 and 2 on several occasions for refund of the said amount, inspite of said requests and much correspondence Op 1 and 2 have failed to repay the said amount. Hence, complainant finally issued a legal notice dated 20.02.2016 and called upon the Op 1 and 2 to refund the said amount. But even inspite of receipt of the legal notice also the Ops have not repaid the said amount. Hence, complainant filed this complaint against Op 1 and 2 alleging deficiency in service and prays for refund of the said amount along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op 1 placed exparte, Op 2 appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that, the Op 1 i.e., Snap deal.Com is not a legal entity and mere an online website being run and operated by this Op and Op 1 (a) and (b) are mere employees of this Op.
This Op is a private limited who owns and operates online market plotform called Sanpdeal.Com through the website i.e., www.snapdeal.com which is an online market place, the website is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate the sales transactions between the third party sellers and consumers. The website enables independent third party sellers to list, advertise and offer to sell their products and services to the users of the website. 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.
This Op only act as an intermediary through its web interface www.snapdeal.com and provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products to the general public to large. It is submitted that these sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by different persons/stakeholders. This Op does not directly or indirectly sell any product on its website www.snapdeal.com. Rather, all products on website are sold by third part sellers, who avail of the online market place services provided by this Op. The sellers directly raise invoices to the final customers for the products sold and bear all commercial risks. The customers purchasing products from such sellers directly make the payments for their purchases either on a prepaid basis (net banking/credit card/debit card) or cash on delivery basis. The ultimate monetary beneficiary of such sale proceedings is the seller and not Op.
The operations of the Op is akin to an online shopping mall where in different independent third party sellers advertise, showcase and offer their products to 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.
The present complaint is based on vague, misconceived notions and baseless assumptions of the complainant and are therefore, denied. The complaint is also not maintainable as it miserably fails to bring on record any violation of the provisions of the applicable laws.
Op 2 further contended that, this Op is neither a trader nor a service provider and there does not exist any privity of contract between the complainant and this Op. The complainant alleged about the cancellation of the ordered product and non-refund of the consideration paid if any, but it is pertinent to mention that the seller of the product who offers product to buyers and its is the seller only who accepts/cancels orders placed by the buyers. Hence, the seller of the ordered product becomes the necessary party in the present complaint, but the complainant failed to implead the actual seller of the product, to whom the order was placed. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. There is no any cause of action arose against this Op as alleged by complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
Op 2 further contended that, the product ordered by complainant was in fact offer for sale by seller and not by this Op. The beneficiary of the consideration paid by complainant is the seller of the product and not this Op. The order placed by complainant was not successful as the same got failed due to lapse of time while placing the order and the order process did not get completed. The information with regard to order failed was duly conveyed to the complainant and without any confirmation and information provided to the complainant is based upon the information received upon the seller of the product and the Op does not provide any confirmation/information as its own. This Op do not know that the complainant bank started charging installments and interest on the amount paid towards purchase of the product. If any grievances arose is only against his bank, who is charging installments even reversal of the whole amount to complainant’s credit card.
Op 2 further contended that, in order to provide good online shopping experience this Op made a correspondence with complainant and asked to provide Bank/Card statement to investigate the refund status and upon receiving the same, investigation was initiated and during internal investigation it was found that the answering Op did not receive any payment from the complainant and it seems that the amount has already been received back to the complainant account and same was conveyed to the complainant. Even the credit card statement discloses that the amount paid by complainant on 20.08.2015 the same has been credited as a refund to the complaint’s credit card on 28.08.2015 itself. The complainant filed this complaint in order to gain wrongfully by fabricating the facts and complainant has suppressed the material facts before this Forum and he has created all baseless stories to get enrich illegally. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op and they are not liable to pay any compensation or claim amount as claimed in the complaint. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and Op 2 not filed any affidavit.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPS?
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. On going through the pleadings, affidavit and document produced by both complainant and Op 2, we noticed that, complainant was booked one Micromax 50C 4400 FHD 124 CM (49) Full HD LED Television worth Rs.31,865/- on 20.08.2015 through online which was maintained by Op 2 and on the same day the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.31,865/- through his business platinum credit card of HDFC Bank, the said amount was credited to the Op 1 and 2 account on 20.08.2015 itself. In this regard, complainant also received the SMS alert to his registered mobile number. Subsequently, after payment the order placed by complainant was cancelled by Op 1, but after cancellation the amount which was paid through credit card by complainant was not refunded. Even inspite of repeated requests also the Op 1 and 2 have not refunded the said amount. Hence, alleges a deficiency in service and prays for refund of the said amount.
The complainant had produced credit card statement from 17.09.2015 to 17.05.2016 marked as Ex.P.1, Letter issued by complainant to his banker HDFC Bank, Chikmagalur dated 23.02.2016 marked as Ex.P.2, E-mail correspondence made with Op 1 and 2 by complainant marked as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, 10 original counter challens issued by HDFC Bank marked as Ex.P.5, Office copy of the legal notice marked as Ex.P.6 in support of his case.
9. On contrary Op 2 has taken a contention that, they are only the intermediary, who facilitates the seller to provide an offer and advertise their products for sale in the website called snapdeal.com. Accordingly, the complainant ordered for one Micromax 50C 4400 FHD 124 CM (49) Full HD LED Television from the seller, but the seller was not made a party to this complaint. Anyhow the order placed by complainant was cancelled and order was failed due to lapse of time. After the cancellation of the order the amount paid by complainant was also returned to the complainant in order to maintain a good online shopping experience and also contended that they have refunded the said amount to the complainant credit card on 28.08.2015 itself. Hence, submits no deficiency in service on the part of this Op and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
10. On going through the statement of credit card issued by HDFC Bank we noticed that, an amount of Rs.31,865/- was credited to the account of snapdeal.com and it also discloses that on 28.08.2015 the same amount was returned to the HDFC Bank credit card No. 4577 0410 0122 as per Ex.P.1. The statement of credit card of the complainant discloses that the amount payable by complainant is only Rs.13,561/-. Hence, it is clear that Ops have refunded an amount of Rs.31,865/- to the complainant. Further we noticed that subsequent statements which were produced before this Forum by complaint till 17.05.2016, no installments were debited from the account of the complainant, it is only because the amount paid to the snapdeal.com i.e., Op 1 was refunded. Hence, we found there is no any deficiency in service on the part of Op 1 and 2 as alleged by complainant. The complainant also failed to establish a deficiency in service on the part of Op 1 and 2. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 17th day of August 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - 12 Credit card statements.
Ex.P.2 - Letter by complainant to HDFC Bank.
Ex.P.3 & 4 - 2 e-mail from Op 1.
Ex.P.5 - 10 counterfoils.
Ex.P.6 - Office copy of legal notice.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
NIL
Dated:17.08.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
