Punjab

Sangrur

CC/167/2015

Nam Sarover - Complainant(s)

Versus

Snapdeal - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Vikramjit Garg

02 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    167

                                                Instituted on:      01.04.2015

                                                Decided on:       02.09.2015

 

 

Nam Sarover Bansal son of Shri Pawan Kumar, resident of Ward No.5, Lehragaga, Tehsil Lehra, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

Snapdeal.com, 1^st Floor, 246, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III, New Delhi 110 020 through its authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Vikramjit Garg, Adv.

For OP                      :                 Shri G.S.Toor, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Nam Sarover Bansal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant got booked one Canon Lasershot Mono MFC Printer MF-4720W with the OP on 6.3.2015 and the same was successfully placed with the OP and in this regard the complainant made a payment of Rs.12,204/- to the OP through his credit card and the said order was confirmed on 6.3.2015 and the order of the complainant was packed on 7.3.2015 and waiting courier pickup for 7.3.2015. The OP assured that the printer in  question will be delivered to the complainant on his address up to 11.3.2015. When the complainant did not receive the printer up to 11.3.2015, then on 11.3.2015 and 12.3.2015, the complainant approached the OP on their customer care and lastly on 13.3.2015, the OP cancelled the order of the complainant and refunded the amount in question to the account of the complainant. Thus, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay him an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and claimed compensation and litigation expenses.  

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is bad under law for non joinder of necessary parties as the complainant failed to implead M/s. Jayana India Private Limited, who is a necessary and proper party and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Moreover, the complainant placed the order on the website of the OP, which was to be delivered at Ludhiana, so this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  Further, it is denied by the Op that the OP ever assured that the product would be delivered on 11.3.2015 and the OP had given an estimated shipping date, which was given by the seller.  It has been further submitted that the complainant was informed through an email that the product is cancelled as the same was not handed over by the seller, resulting in cancellation of the order and the same was immediately intimated to the complainant on 12.3.2015. It has been further stated that the amount in question has been refunded to the complainant. Any deficiency in service on the part of the Op has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of email printout, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 copies of emails printout of shipping details, Ex.C-5 copy of account statement and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Op has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of website terms, Ex.OP-2 copy of website terms (4 pages), Ex.OP-3 affidavit, Ex.OP-4 copy of order details, Ex.OP-5 copy of email, Ex.OP-6 copy of detail seller and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant placed an order for printer in question on 6.3.2015 with the OP for Rs.12,204/- and paid the amount  through his credit card.  It is further not in dispute that the order in question was to be delivered to the complainant by 11.3.2015.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP cancelled the order of the complainant on 13.3.2015 and refunded the amount to the complainant.  Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint saying that he has been harassed in the hands of the OPs by placing the order in question and the same was cancelled by the OP thereafter. On the other hand, the stand of the Op is that though the order was placed on the site of the OP, but the complainant did not implead the seller of the product as a party i.e. M/s. Jayana Pvt. Ltd. and has further disputed the jurisdiction of this Forum as the product was to be delivered at Ludhiana. Further the learned counsel for the OP has contended that the OP cannot be made liable for cancellation of the order of the complainant by the supplier. It is contended by the learned counsel for the OP that the Op acted as an intermediary only.  Further as per section 2(2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, term ‘intermediary’ has been defined as : “Intermediary, with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person, who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that records or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online auction sites, online market places and cyber cafes”.  In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had placed online order for purchasing the printer in question through the website of the Op and as per provisions of the above referred section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the OP is only an intermediary.  In our view, the OP is only a platform for seller to sell their product to the general public at large, therefore, the complaint is bad for non joinder of the necessary party.  Moreover, as per the section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 the OP is exempted and the OP cannot be held liable for any transaction entered into by the parties through its website.  As such, no deficiency in service on the part of the Op can be held in the circumstances of the case. 

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 2, 2015.

 

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member