Delhi

East Delhi

CC/163/2015

ABHISHEK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SNAPDEAL - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 163/15

Shri ABHISHEK SINGH

R/O 3^rdFLOOR B-99, ADJACENT TO BABY LAND PUBLIC SCHOOL,

1.  

 

Vs

 

 

1. SNAPDEAL

246, 1^st FLOOR OKHLA,

INDUSRTIAL AREA, PHASE-iii

1.  

 

2. ACER INDIA PVT. LTD.,

SOUTH REGIONAL OFFICE

NO. 873, 2^ND FLOOR,

80 FEET ROAD, INDIAR NAGAR,

1.                         ….Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 10.03.2015

Judgment Reserved for: 08.01.2018

Judgment Passed on: 12.01.2018

 

 

Order By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. The present complaint pertains to allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services against OP-1 (Snapdeal) and OP-2 (ACER INDIA Pvt. Ltd.).
2. The facts of the present complaint are that on 14.12.2014, the complainant ordered one ACER C720 laptop from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.20,363/- vide invoice no.SB4272/14-15/486. It has been stated that at the time of purchase the complainant was assured by the officer of OP-1, that the said laptop was good in quality. After purchasing the laptop the complainant found that the right click was not working and there was no CD Drive, however the MS Excel, Power Point, Tally erp9 were also not compatible. The complainant being a student, immediately made a complaint with the OP-1 vide complaint no. 13444915 which was not satisfactorily replied by OP-1, E-mail dated 19.12.2014, 20.12.2014 were written to OP stating the issue faced by the complainant and requested for replacement/refund the amount. It has been further stated that the complainant was asked to share his account details to initiate refund which was duly complied by the complainant but the same has not been refunded to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint for seeking direction to OP to refund the cost of the laptop i.e. Rs.20,363/-, compensation for harassment and mental pain and agony as Rs.40,000/-and cost of litigation as Rs.10,000/-.

Retail invoice dated 14.12.2014, E-mail dated 14.12.2014, 20.12.2014, 21.12.2014, have been annexed with the complaint.

3. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs and reply was filed on behalf of OP-1 where they have submitted that    OP-1 only acts as an intermediary through it’s web interface www.snapdeal.com and provides medium to various sellers all over India to offer sale and sell their products to the general public at large. It was submitted that the sellers being a separate entity, being controlled and managed by different persons/ stakeholders. It was further submitted that OP does not directly or indirectly sell his products on its website. Rather, all the products on website were sold by 3^rd party sellers, and invoice was directly raised to the final customers for the product sold by the sellers. The warranty on the product was provided either by the manufacturer company or by the sellers selling the products. OP-1 in their reply have also referred Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000-

Section 79 of the Act provides as under:

1. “Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him.
2. The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if-

1. The function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted; or
2. The intermediary does not-

1. Initiate the transmission,
2. Select the receiver of the transmission, and
3. Select or modify the information contained in the transmission;

3.  The intermediary observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf.

3. The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if-

1. The intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or otherwise in the commission of the unlawful act;
2. Upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, the expression “third party information” means any information dealt with by an intermediary in his capacity as an intermediary.”

4. It was submitted that the Laptop was sold by M/S Ram Communication and not by OP-1 and have annexed copy of the retail invoice as Annexure-10. It was submitted that the complainant was asked to approach to the Service Centre of the manufacturer. In case there was any manufacturing defect, in case the job sheet issued by the service centre confirmed the defect then the said Job Sheet was required to be submitted to OP-1 and then OP-1 was to initiate refund but as the complainant did not provide any such Job Sheet due to which OP-1 was constrained to decline refund. Rest all the contents of the complaint were denied. OP has annexed Authorization letter as Annexure-1, judgment of different Foras from Annexure II to Annexure-X, Annexure XI Retail invoice, Annexure-XII copy of E.mail, Annexure-XIII Judgment of NCDRC & Annexure XIV as E.mail dated 21.12.2015.
5. OP-2 did not appear despite service, hence, they are proceeded ex-parte.
6. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant wherein contents of the complaint were reiterated and those all of the written statement were denied.
7. Complainant examined himself and stated on oath the contents of the complaint however no evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of OP-1 despite opportunity.
8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and OP-1 and have perused the material on record. The complainant has alleged that the product delivered had manufacturing defects such as none functioning of Right click, absence of CD Drive, and unable to run Microsoft Excel, erp9. If take a look at the invoice the Laptop was delivered on 14.12.2014 and the first complaint was made on 19.12.2014 which is after about five days, when the complainant has alleged that there was no CD Drive and right click was not working then he should have lodged the complaint immediately. However, the complainant has not placed on record any Job Sheet to substantiate his allegations regarding the manufacturing defects. At the same time, if we take a look into Annexure-XIV annexed by OP-1 which is an    E-mail dated 21.12.2014 wherein the complainant was informed that incase the delivered product was faulty, damaged, defective, or different from shown at the website and as he had got the same product which was ordered, in that condition the refund cannot be initiated. However, complainant has not annexed any photograph/expert opinion to prove his allegations. Hence, OP-1 cannot be helf liable for deficiency in services, at the same time complainant has not been able to prove any manufacturing defect, thus OP-2is also not liable for any deficiency in services and thus, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merit without order to cost. 

   Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

 (Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                                    (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

       MEMBER                                                                             MEMBER              

 

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                            PRESIDENT