DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 537
Instituted on: 05.09.2016
Decided on: 24.03.2017
Kamal Kumar son of Shri Satbir Kumar, R/O Ranbir College Road, Bhalla Basti, Sangrur.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Snapdeal No.246, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III, New Delhi through its Managing Director.
2. Just Shopping Pvt. Ltd. BanPC C/o Proconnect Supply Chain Solutions Ltd. SY No.102/1, Adakamaranhalli Village, Dasnapura Hobli, Makali Post, City Bangalore (Karnataka) 562123 through its Prop/Partner.
3. E-Com Courier Services, Near Shanidev Mandir, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Outside Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its prop/partner.
4. E-Com Courier Services, Corporate Office No.14/12/2, Samalka, Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, New Delhi-110 037 through its Managing Director.
5. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. 19th Floor, Concore Tower-C, UB City No.24, Vittal Malaya Road, Bangalore-560001 through its Managing Director.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate.
For OP No.1 : Shri G.S.Toor, Advocate
For OP No.2&5 : Exparte.
For OP No.3&4 : Shri G.P.Sharma, Advocate.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Kamal Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the Ops number 1 and 2 by ordering one mobile phone model Apple iphone 5S 16 GB space Grey vide order number 14484053713 dated 2.8.2016. The grievance of the complainant is that on 7.8.2016 the complainant received a phone call from OP number 3 that the parcel has been received from OP number 1 and further told the complainant to collect the same from OP number 3, as such the complainant collected the parcel and paid an amount of Rs.20,999/- to OP number 3 in cash. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant took the mobile parcel at home and opened the same in the presence of his friend Mr. Manoj Nagpal and was shocked to see that there were two pieces of brick lying in the parcel instead of ordered mobile set. As such, the complainant approached the OP number 3 and disclosed the entire episode, but the OP number 3 told that they are not at all responsible for the same. Thereafter the complainant sent emails and called on the helpline number of the Ops number 1 and 2, but nothing happened. The complainant also downloaded the invoice from the website of the OP number 1 and the IMEI number was mentioned as 352084079083547, but the OP number 5 also did not disclose the status of the mobile set in question. Nothing happened despite approaching the complainant to the Ops so many times. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the purchase price of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.20,999/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Record shows that the Ops number 2 and 5 did not appear despite service, as such, both the Ops number 2 and 5 were proceeded exparte.
3. In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and that the complainant is not a consumer. On merits, it has been denied that the OP number 1 sold any product to the complainant and the complainant had purchased the product from OP number 2, as is evident from the invoice on record. Further it is stated that the OP number 1 i.e. Jasper Infotech Private Limited operates an online marketplace platform under the brand name “snapdeal” through the website i.e. www.snapdeal.com. It is stated further that once the 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. Other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.
4. In reply filed by Ops number 3 and 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that while delivering the shipment OPs are not required to verify the contents or quality of the shipment whatsoever and is required to deliver the same in the packaged condition itself to the end customer, the complainant has dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complainant is not a consumer and that the OP delivered the shipment intact condition and that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had purchased online a mobile phone Apple iphone 5S 16 GB in question vide order dated 2.8.2016 from OP number 1 and 2 and that the said product was delivered in perfect packaged condition to the complainant by OP on 7.8.2016. It is further stated that at the time of delivery of shipment the complainant was advised to open the package in front of the CCTV camera, but he chose to take it along with him and after half an hour came back to state that he found bricks instead of mobile. It is stated that the OP simply performs the task of picking up an already packaged product from the seller and delivering it to by the buyer with the sole responsibility of ensuring that the package is delivered in intact condition, which has been delivered to the complainant. The other allegations have been denied.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 affidavit of Manoj Nagpal, Ex.C-3 copy of invoice, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-12 copies of emails, Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-19 photographs, Ex.C-20 copy of print online news and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.Op1/1 affidavit, Ex.Op1/2 copy of website terms of use, Ex.OP1/3 copy of terms of offer for sale and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the Ops number 3 and 4 have produced Ex.OP3&4/1 affidavit along with Exhibit OP 1 and closed evidence.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the documents produced on the file by the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
7. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a mobile phone model Apple 5S 16 GB space grey vide order number 14484053713 on 2.8.2016 from Ops number 1 and 2, as is evident from the copy of invoice Ex.C-3 and the parcel allegedly containing the mobile set in question was delivered to the complainant on 7.8.2016. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that when he opened the parcel, he found that there was no mobile set rather he found two pieces of bricks in place of the mobile set in question, as such, he immediately approached the Ops by sending an email, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4, wherein he has clearly mentioned that the parcel delivered to the complainant was having a brick instead of mobile set in question. Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 are again the copies of the emails sent to the Ops number 1 to 2, from where it is clear that the complainant found the pieces of brick instead of the mobile set in question as ordered by him and for that he had paid an amount of Rs.20,999/- in cash at the time of getting the delivery of the parcel in question. Again Ex.C-9 is the copy of email sent to the OP stating that he will approach the consumer court, if his grievance was not redressed, Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-19 are the photographs of the package showing the pieces of brick itself. Further to support his contention, the complainant has also produced the sworn affidavit of one Manoj Nagpal, wherein he has clearly mentioned that he and complainant were shocked when the parcel was opened and found there were two pieces of bricks lying in the parcel instead of the mobile set in question as ordered by the complainant. On the other hand, the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that actually the mobile set was despatched and delivered to the complainant, more so when it is the responsibility of the Ops to deliver the product intact, as the complainant had paid for that. We may mention that the Ops number 1 to 4 even did not make any efforts to have it checked from the OP number 5 i.e. Apple India (manufacturer of the product) that the mobile set having IMEI number 352084079083547 is in working condition and if that where/place it is working. But, no sort of that have been done by Ops number 1 to 4. As such, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the Ops number 1 to 4 are directed to refund to the complainant the amount so recovered from the complainant for the supply of the mobile set in question.
8. We may further mention that the complainant placed the order at Sangrur and the product in question was also supplied by the OPs to the complainant at Sangrur, as such, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 to 4, who are jointly and severally liable to refund to the complainant the purchase price of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.20,999/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 05.09.2016 till realisation. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.
10. This case was reserved on 15.03.2017 and the same has been decided today.
11. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
March 24, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
