Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/773/2019

Nirmal Singh Jagdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

Snapdeal - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/773/2019
Date of Institution	:	31/07/2019
Date of Decision	:	02/05/2022

 

Nirmal Singh Jagdeva r/o H.No.1071, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Snapdeal through its Managing Director, Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd., 246, 1^st Floor, Phase-III, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020.
2. Ami Craft Life Styles Pvt. Ltd., F-157, Ground Floor, Shaheenbagh, Abul Fazal Enclave-II, New Delhi 110025 through its Proprietor.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                 

              

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Piyush Khanna, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OP-2 ex-parte

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      The facts in brief are, after going through the advertisement put up by the OPs on the website, the complainant placed online order dated 24.6.2019 for purchase of one waist belt of Woodland brand and made the payment of ₹361/- vide debit/credit card and the same was delivered on 27.6.2019. Upon opening packing of the parcel, complainant came to know that it was a fake product and there were bubbles in the belt on both sides and after using the same for three times, the belt started cracking.  The complainant talked to the official of OP-1, but, he refused to do anything. Thereafter the complainant represented to the OPs vide email dated 5.7.2019, but, to no avail.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OP-1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and admitted the factual matrix with regard to the purchase of the product by the complainant. Averred OP-1 merely operates as an online marketplace platform under the brand name/trademark “Snapdeal” which acts as an intermediary between the actual seller and the buyer of a product. The website enables independent third party sellers to list, advertise and offer to sell their products and services to the users of the website. Further averred, OP-1 does not sell any product rather all the products are sold directly by various sellers to end customers and invoices are generated directly by such sellers to the customers. Maintained the complainant approached OP-1 on 5.7.2019 stating he had quality issue and sought refund. However, since the Trust Pay Period was over for the complainant, therefore, his request was closed. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     Registered notice was sent to OP-2 which was presumed to have been served. Since none appeared on behalf of OP-2, therefore, vide order dated 24.10.2019 of this Commission, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for OP-1 and gone through the record of the case.
7.     In the present case, the complainant made payment of ₹361/- vide debit/credit card for purchase of one waist belt of Woodland brand by using the platform of OP-1 and the same was delivered to him on 27.6.2019.  The allegation of the complainant is that the product delivered was not original and he noticed bubbles in the belt on both sides and it started cracking. The complainant reported the same to OP-1 vide email dated 5.7.2019 i.e. just after 8-9 days from the date of receipt, but, his grievance was not redressed. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
8.     The stand taken by OP-1 is that the product in question was actually sold by OP-2 by using the platform of OP-1. Hence, it cannot be held liable either for any defect in the product or for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP-2.
9.     After going through the evidence on record, it is evident that the purchase was made through OP-2 by using the platform of OP-1. However, in our opinion, actually it is OP-1 who is selling the product through vendors by using its own goodwill and, therefore, it cannot escape the consequences in case the product supplied is found to be defective/duplicate/spurious etc.  It is not the case of OP-1 that it is not earning any profit out of the bargain. Undoubtedly, OP-1 shares profit with vendors.
10.     Importantly, OP-2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of OP-2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of OP-2 shows it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted qua OP-2.
11.     The complainant trusting the big name/brand of OP-1 ordered the product in question which, within a few days of purchase, was found to be fake and defective. Hence, the act of OPs for supplying a duplicate/substandard product to the complainant and thereafter not redressing the genuine grievance of the complainant, even during the pendency of the instant consumer complaint, proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. As such, OPs are required to refund the amount paid for the purchase of the product alongwith compensation for harassment undergone by him.
12.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. To refund ₹361/- to the complainant. The complainant shall, however, return the defective product to the OPs.
2. to pay an amount of ₹2,500/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹2,500/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

13.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
02/05/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member