Punjab

Sangrur

CC/5/2015

Nikhil Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Snapdeal - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajinder Goyal

26 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    005

                                                Instituted on:      02.01.2015

                                                Decided on:       26.03.2015

 

Nikhil Bansal son of Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal R/o Gobindpura Colony, Street No.4, Near Railway Station, Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

Snapdeal, 246, First Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-III, Delhi through its MD/GM.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rajinder Goyal, Advocate.

For Opposite party     :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Nikhil 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 placed an order of Apple iphone 5S (Gold) with the OP on 31.7.2014 vide order number 2530553278 under the offer of the OP. It is further averred that the cost of the mobile set in question was Rs.46,719/- and there was a discount of Rs.46,651/- on the same, as such, the complainant was to pay an amount of Rs.68/- only. It is further averred that it was assured by the OP that the order will be despatched on or before 1.8.2014 and was to be delivered within 4-5 days.  It is further averred that the complainant received a mail dated 1.8.2014 from the OP vide which the order of the complainant was cancelled.  When a call was made by the complainant to the representative of the OP, it was told that due to technical problem, the price of the product was wrongly shown and the same cannot be delivered at that price. Thereafter the complainant sent the email to the OP whereby requesting it to deliver the set as per the order placed upon the OP.  It is further averred that despite repeatedly approaching the OP by the complainant, nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to provide the mobile phone in question i.e. Apple iphone 5S 16 GB (Gold) to the complainant at Rs.68/- as per the order placed by the complainant and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP, but the OP did not appear despite service, as such OP was proceeded exparte on 16.2.2015.  Thereafter the OP also filed an application for setting aside the exparte proceedings on 05.3.2015, the same was also dismissed on 17.3.2015. 

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 copies of emails and closed evidence. No evidence has been adduced by the Op as the OP was already proceeded exparte on 17.3.2015.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that though he placed the order of Apple iPhone 5S 16 GB (Gold) with the OP on 31.7.2014 vide order number 2530553278 for Rs.46,651/- with a discount of Rs.46,719/- meaning thereby the complainant was to pay Rs.68/- only to the complainant, but the same was not delivered to the complainant.  Ex.C-2 is the copy of order dated 31.7.2014 which clearly shows that the complainant was to pay Rs.68/- only for that product. Ex.C-3 is the copy of order wherein it has been clearly mentioned that ‘your order is successfully placed on 31.7.2014’.  Ex.C-1 is the affidavit of the complainant in support of his contention.   

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint as the order in question was booked with the OP from Sangrur. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Meghalaya State Commission Shillong in The M.D. Air Deccan & others versus Ram Gopal Aggarwal 2014(1) CLT 181 wherein it has been held that where contracts for services and/or goods are entered into over the internet, then for the purposes of Consumer complaints, part of the cause of action arises inter alia at the complainant’s place of business. If acceptance of the contract is communicated to him through the internet, including the medium of emails, this is in addition to the other places where a consumer may choose to file a complaint in accordance with the other provisions of Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In the present case also, it is an admitted fact of the complainant that the order was booked at Sangrur, as such this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint in view of the legal position explained above.  

 

7.             The case in hand is exparte one, as the OP did not appear despite service.  Further the OP through his counsel filed an application on 5.3.2015 for setting aside the order dated 16.2.2015 proceeding the Op exparte, but the application of the complainant was dismissed on 17.3.2015 being not maintainable.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Op and as such, we allow the complaint and direct OP to provide to the complainant the apple iphone 5S 16 GB (gold) to the complainant at Rs.68/- only and further to pay a consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses  to the tune of Rs.2000/- only.

 

9.             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 26, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member