Counsel for the complainant : Party in person
Counsel for the opposite Party No.1 : Sri V.Basava Raju 112/07
Opposite party No.2 : Sri G.Madhu Sudhan Reddy
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 alleging that failure to refund the amount after the cancellation of product amounts to deficiency in service hence a direction to refund the amount with interest at 18% P.A and to award a compensation of Rs. 95,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant and costs of this complaint.
- The complaint averments in brief are that on 9-1-2015 complainant placed an order through opposite party No.1 (1) to learn English Made Easy Video Training ( 9 hours of Video Lectures, Unlimited life time access, 3 months course duration, English to Hindi translation) (DVD) (2) learned Vedic Mathematics Sutras/Tips/Tricks in a day (3) Grade 8 Olampiad book for the children. For all the above three items complainant was charged twice out of which two items from both orders were cancelled and 3rd item was charged twice by the opposite party. Complainant placed an order for the above items through online and payment of Rs.2,863/- was done but the order was not processed. He received mail informing that his purchase at Snap deal .com was not completed and to check and if any trouble in buying please click the Retry button again. In case the amount has been debited need not worry as same will be refunded to him. The second attempt made by the complainant was also failed. Though the process failed as orders were booked twice he was asked to cancel one. But the amount was charged twice. Hence immediately he put a message to cancel the first order out of duplicate one. Instead of cancelling the first one and processing the second one opposite party No.1 cancelled both the orders and refunded the amount but processed the 3rd item (i.e, Learn Vedic Mathematics) from both orders. Opposite party No.2 sent mail twice on 12th and 13th January asking him to click on the link to generate user ID and Password and then login to start using the online videos and learn . Later opposite party No.2 also sent a mail asking the complainant to click on link to activate the product but the complainant did not click and did not activate the product. He did not generate login credentials from his email account. Hence the product remained sealed and unaccepted stage. The complainant sent mail to opposite party No.1 to resolve the duplicate billing problem but there was no response for 48 hours.
In the telephone conversation the complainant was informed that order has been delivered as per their records and same was physically received by the courier hence nothing can be done. Complainant was not explained in detail at what has happened. The complainant also directly communicated to opposite party No.2 by mail asking as to how it can charged twice for the same product but it was no use. The opposite party No.1 has to resolve the issue of refunding the amount charges 2nd time. After several mails and conversations on 14th August it was confirmed that opposite party No.2 has sent mail and the order was delivered. Complainant was asked to go their terms and conditions in the website and amount cannot be refunded to him. Thus the complainant was cheated by the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint for the above stated reliefs.
- Opposite party No.1&2 have filed separate written versions admitting that complainant has placed the orders but denied the allegations of the deficiency of service.
The stand of the opposite party No.1 is that it operates online market place platform under the brand name Snapdeal through the website. The website is an electronic platform and it acts as an intermediary to facilitate sales transactions between independent third party sellers and consumers. The website enables 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 offered by 3rd party seller same is intimated electronically and is required to ensure that the products are made available and delivered to the user as per the terms set out by the seller. Thus opposite party No.1 is only an intermediary through its web interface and medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products to the public at large. Sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by different persons. opposite party No.1 does not directly or indirectly sell any product on its website. The sellers directly raise invoices to final customers to the product sold and bear all commercial risks. The customers purchasing the products from the sellers directly make the payments to their purchases either on a pre-paid basis or cash on delivery basis. Thus ultimately monitory beneficiary of such sale proceedings is the seller but not opposite party No.1.
The grievance of the complainant is about the cancellation of the ordered product and charging twice for the same product. Hence it is for the seller of the product who offered to sell to answer it. As such the seller of the product becomes necessary party to the complaint but the complainant failed to implead actual seller of the product hence non-joinder of the seller as necessary party the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
No relief can be granted against the opposite party No. 1 to complainant because the product booked by the complainant was not accepted by the opposite party No.1 and it has no role in offerings and acceptance, confirmation or delivery of the product ordered and product sold by independent seller through the website of opposite party No.1. Similarly opposite party No.1 has not charged any amount from the complainant for using its website as such the complainant cannot become a consumer of opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 being an intermediary is not liable for 3rd party transaction on its website the same has been held by Supreme Court of India in the case of Sachayani Savings Investment (I) Ltd and ors Vs. State of West Bengal (Civil Appeal No.5168 of 2000) and also the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Intex Technologies Vs. Jasper Infotech Pvt.Ltd
The complainant has placed an orders vide order No.4357131677 and it consists of 3 orders which are 5818587250, 5818567260 and 5818507289 out of which sub order No.5818587250 and 5818567260 was cancelled by seller. Refund was arranged through transaction code 4251533767 on 12-01-2015 & 13-01-2015 and the 3rd party sub order was delivered to the complainant. On the same day complainant placed another order No.4357474924 and it consists of three sub orders which are 5818938132, 5818958126 and 5818928148 out of which sub order No.5818938132 & 5818958126 were again cancelled by the seller and refund was effected to the complainant through net banking code 4251827332 on 13-1-2015 & 16-1-2015 and the sub order No.5818928148 delivered was effected. Thus opposite party No.1 already arranged for refund of the cost of the product to the complainant. Hence the complainant cannot have a grievance against opposite party No.1.
- The stand of opposite party No.2 in its separate written version is that it is a software company into E-Commerce having certain courses listed on its website and as well as study materials to prospective students. The courses listed at Snapdeal.com for every course i.e., sold through opposite party No.1 i.e, snapdeal.com it charges commission at 15% from the sales price . It does not deal with the clients purchasing the said course through opposite party No.1 and it only processes the order as per the direction of the opposite party No.1 and it only interacts with the clients directly in cases where the customer directly subscribes the courses through their own customer portal. When an order is placed through Snapdeal.com it only just processes the said order as per the direction of Snapdeal.com and dispatch of the product to the clients. The opposite party No.1 directly deducted 15% of the cost of the product from the amount paid by the customer ordering the courses online and the balance amount is transferred to opposite party No.2 account. As such there is no direct order from customer to opposite party No.2.
The complainant ordered the said courses through website of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 directed to opposite party No.2 to process the same and accordingly opposite party No.2 processed it immediately. During the first order there seemed to be some error in processing which was not to the notice of the opposite party No.2 and complainant was directed by the opposite party No.1 to reorder for the same. Accordingly once again the said order was directed opposite party No.2 by opposite party No.1 as a result complainant was made to order twice and also charged twice. It appears the complainant as per the direction of opposite party No.1 cancelled which was never to the knowledge of opposite party No.2 as it was not informed by opposite party No.1. Unaware of the same opposite party No.2 processed both the orders.
It appears the complainant cancelled the second order but opposite party No.1 instead cancelled 2 courses from each order and refunded the amount for the courses cancelled from each order. Complainant seems to have contacted the opposite party No.1 who rejected the request on account of refund policy hence the opposite party No.2 cannot be liable for inconvenience caused to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 never contacted opposite party No.2 to inform the cancellation.
Since the complainant has purchased the courses from the opposite party No.1 and paid the amount to opposite party No.1 which after collecting 15% of the cost remitted the balance to opposite party No.2 there was no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.2. When the complainant contacted opposite party No.2 immediately opposite party No.2 contacted opposite party No.1 through mail on 17-4-2015 and requested to resolve the issue. Opposite party No.2 was always willing to refund the amount if the complainant was found to have been charged twice. The opposite party No.2 is bonafide in its conduct and it is not liable for inconvenience caused to the complainant if any. Hence no relief can be granted to complainant against opposite party No.2.
In the enquiry the complainant has filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and to support the same got exhibited six (6) documents. Similarly for the Opposite Party No.1 evidence affidavit of its authorized signatory is got filed and same is replica for the written version filed for it. Two (2) documents are got exhibited on their behalf. For opposite party No.2 evidence affidavit of its authorized representative Sri Harmanpreet Singh got filed and same is also replica to written version filed for it. No document is exhibited for opposite party No.2.
On a consideration of the facts brought on record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the complainant is bad for non –joinder of necessary parties as pleaded by opposite party No.1?
- Whether deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 &2 in the instant complaint ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: The first and foremost objection taken as to the maintainability of the present complaint by opposite party No.1 is that it being only an intermediary providing online platform on its website to the seller and the purchaser has no role in the transaction between the cellar and the purchaser of the products. It also has taken a plea that it has not charged anything from the complainant for using its website as such the complainant is not a customer of opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded by opposite party No.1 repeatedly in the written version that the complainant has not made seller of the product as a party to it but it appears the opposite party No.1 has not gone through the cause title because opposite party No.2 is the seller of the product for which complainant placed order through website of opposite party No.1. The written version of opposite party No.2 shows the orders placed by the complainant for its product were transmitted by opposite party No.1 and accordingly opposite party No.2 processed and delivered to the complainant. Cancellation of the product by the complainant was not communicated to opposite party No.2 by opposite party No.1. So the seller of the product for which the complainant placed order is very much on the record in the present complaint. Hence the stand of opposite party No.1 that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party has no legs to stand.
Point No.2: The plea of the opposite party No.1 is that it has not charged anything from the complainant for use of its website found to be false in view of the clear statement from opposite party No.2 in its written version that for every course that is sold through opposite party No.1 a commission 15% was charged by opposite party No.1 then only processed the order as per the direction of the opposite party No.1 and it only interacts with the clients directly in cases where the customer directly subscribes the courses through their own customer portal. When an order is placed through opposite party No.1 it just processes the said order as per the direction of opposite party No.1 and dispatch of the product to the clients. The opposite party No.1 directly deducted 15% of the cost of the product from the amount paid by the customer ordering the courses online to it and balance amount is only transferred by opposite party No.1. This statement opposite party No.2 stated in its written version but is not countered by opposite party No.1 in the evidence affidavit filed for it. Hence the same is required to be taken into consideration. It is not in dispute that the complainant was charged twice for the product which was not cancelled by him for two times.
Opposite party No.1 having pleaded several grounds for denying the relief against it ultimately said that in order maintain a customer friendly relation the amount has been refunded to the complainant. At para 19 of the written version and also evidence affidavit filed in support of it, it has been categorically stated that in order to provide good customer service refund was arranged through transaction code 4251533767 on 12-01-2015 and 13-01-2015 and third product with reference to sub order no. 5818507289 was delivered to the complainant address and on the same day placed another order again consisting of three sub orders. Out of which two sub orders were again cancelled and the refund was arranged to the complainant through net banking transaction code 4251827332 on 13-1-2015 & 16-01-2015. Having said so the opposite party No.1 has not filed any proof for it when the amount was sent through net banking certainly details relating to it and the account number of the complainant will be available with opposite party No.1. What prevented the opposite party No.1 to file account statement of its banker which would reflect refund of the amount to the complainant through net banking is not explained. Though opposite party No.1 pleaded that refund was processed to complainant the burden shifts on its to substantiate the same but no attempt has been made by opposite party No.1 to discharge its burden. As such it is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.3: The material brought on record has proved that opposite party No.1 having collected 15% of the cost of the product for which the complainant placed an order and having pleaded that it arranged for the refund in pursuance of the cancellation of the order by the complainant failed to substantiate. Hence the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount with interest and compensation. Accordingly point is answered in favour of the complainant.
Point No.4: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party No.1
- To refund an amount of Rs.4,800/- with interest at 18% P.a from 9-1-2015 to the date of payment to the complainant .
- To pay a sum of 10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant by not refunding the amount
- Opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint to the complainant
- Complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
Time for compliance: One month from the date of service of this order
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 26th day of August , 2019.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1- Snap deal purchase done.jpg ( products ordered to opposite party which are charged twice for which he had been requesting them to resolve the duplicate bill issue)
Ex.A2-snapdeal-amt-refunded products.png
Ex.A3- order delivered asking to Activate.jpg
Ex.A4-wiziq sent activationlink.jpg
Ex.A5-reply to WizlQ.jpg
Ex.A6 Vendor confirmation as problem with snapdeal.jpg
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party
Ex.B1- copy of the Terms of use and the terms of offer for sale of the website www.snapdeal.com
Ex.B2- copy of judgment in the case of RP 1422/2016 Vishal Kotecha V.Snapdeal.com &Anr.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
