Punjab

Sangrur

CC/62/2017

Rahul Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Snapdeal - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 62                                                                                          

                                                                   Instituted on:  14.02.2017

                                                                   Decided on:    02.06.2017

 

Rahul Jindal son of Yashpal Jindal, resident of House No.B7/249, Opposite Rama Sports, Sunami Gate, near Bada Chowk, Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

 

1.       Snapdeal 362-363, ASF-Centre, Udygo Vihar Industrial Area Phase-4, Gurgaon through Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

2.       Silver Kick, Gali No.4, Parmarth Colony, Begu Road, Sirsa (Haryana) through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.

3.       Star Imact Pvt. Limited, Ludhiana Road, Rehman Nagar, Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its proprietor/ authorized Signatory.

        ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:        In person                            

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1    :                Shri G.S.Toor,  Advocate         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2    :                Shri N.S.Ghuman, Advocate         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3    :                Exparte         

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

     

           

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Rahul Jindal complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a pair of shoe Marka Sega Lifestyle Multi Color Casual Shoe from the OP no.1 through invoice  No. S840DC/16-17/2819 dated 19.09.2016 for  consideration of Rs.749/- through OP no.2. When the complainant opened the box  he was surprised that the price rate of above said shoe is Rs.499/-  but the OPs received  excess amount. The complainant talked telephonically  with the OPs but the OPs did not accede his request. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund  the excess amount alongwith interest,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP no.1,  legal objections on the grounds of maintainability and cause of action have been taken up. It is submitted that OP no.1 is working only as a intermediate for the seller and the buyer. The OP no.1 displayed on his website regarding all details of the sellers at the item of sale on his website.  If any liability arise regarding the product sold through the OP no.1, the liability is only of the seller of the product. Therefore, the OP no.1 has no concern with the present dispute of the complainant and OPs no.1 and 3.  The alleged difference  in the sale price and they price mentioned on the box of the shoe has concern only with the OP no.2. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.2, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability and cause of action have been taken up. It is admitted that the complainant has purchased the shoes through the OP no.2 and the fact remains that in case there has been any grudge regarding the product the complainant was having the sufficient  time to get his grievance redressed but the complainant instead of availing the said remedy rather filed the present complaint. The complainant after the delivery of ordered shoes never approached the OP no.2 at any time hence the assertion is denied. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2.  

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 and  affidavit Ex.OP2/1 and closed evidence.   

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is not in dispute on record that the complainant purchased  a pair of shoe Marka Sega Lifestyle Multi Color Casual Shoe from the OP no.1 under invoice  No. S840DC/16-17/2819 dated 19.09.2016 for consideration of Rs.749/- through OP no.2. The  grievance of the complainant is that when he opened the box  he was surprised to see that the price rate of the abovesaid shoe is Rs.499/- . Then he requested the OP telephonically to refund the excess amount  but they did not do so. On the other hand, OP no.1has stated that  OP no.1 is working only as a intermediate for the seller and the buyer. The OP no.1 displayed on his website regarding all details of the sellers at the time of sale on his website.  If any liability arise regarding the product sold through the OP no.1, the liability is only of the seller of the product. The OP No.2 has admitted that  said shoes were purchased  by the complainant through it but it is specific case of the OP no.2 that if there was any grudge regarding the product, the complainant has sufficient time to get his grievance redressed but the complainant did not so rather filed the present complaint. We find that the complainant has produced on record only his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of retail invoice Ex.C-2 and pair of shoe Ex.C-3 but he has not produced any document/ evidence which could show that after receiving the disputed shoe he approached the OP to get the excess amount refunded rather he only says that he talked telephonically with the OPs about refund of the excess amount but no proof in this regard has been produced by the complainant. Even though we feel that it is crucial duty of the OPs to provide accurate service to their customers but in the instant case the OP had sent a pair of shoes of Rs.499/- instead of Rs.749/- as ordered by the complainant which shows deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2.   

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint and direct the OP no.2 to either replace the shoes of the complainant with shoes of Rs.749/- as ordered by him  or in the alternative refund the price amount of i.e. Rs.749/-.  We further direct the OP no.2 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1000/- a consolidated amount of compensation.

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                  

             Announced

                June 2, 2017

 

 

 

( Vinod Kumar Gulati )  ( Sarita Garg)       (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                Member                    Member                            President