Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/697/2019

Rajiv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Snapdeal - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Mishra Adv., Jagan Nath Bhandari Adv., Ritesh Tomar Adv. & Guarav Chanana Adv.

21 May 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	697/2019
Date of Institution	:	31.07.2019
Date of Decision	:	21.05.2021

 

                                       

                       

 

Rajiv Kumar s/o Pawan Kumar age 31 years r/o H.No.898, Near Shiv Mandir, Near Dera Sahib, Manimajra, Chandigarh 160101.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Snapdeal through its Manager/Authorized Signatory, Head Office: Snapdeal, Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd., 246, 1^st Floor, Phase-III, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020.

2.     M/s Till You Drop through its Authorized Representative, A90, Ground Floor, Inderpuri, New Delhi-110012.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:
		SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
		SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER
		SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Satish Mishra, Adv. for the complainant
	Sh.Piyush Khanna, Adv. for OP No.1 OP No.2 exparte

 

      

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that OP No.2 is a retailer/authorized seller agent of OP No.1 to sell its goods and articles over OP No.2’s website portal and collection of payment on delivery and raising invoices on behalf of OP No.1.  According to the complainant, he placed an order on website of OP No.1 for SJCAM SJ4000 1080P Action Camera vide order no.29522184517 on 26.06.2019 for Rs.2499/- and it was cash on delivery order. On 29.06.2019, he received the product by paying Rs.2499/- cash.  However, he was astonished to see when he unboxed what he ordered and paid for, was not delivered and the same was totally different from one which he placed an order to OP No.1.  Immediately he called up to the customer care of OP No.1 on the same day at the helpline number and put the same into the knowledge of OP No.1 by having a conversation with its representative and initiated request reference No.58375699 for return/refunding the amount  for not fulfilling his order of his choice.  He also wrote an e-mail dated 30.06.2019 to OP No.1’s official email helpline ID regarding resolving the issue to which he received response mail on 30.06.2019 that OP No.1 needs little more details in terms of photographs of the product received to resolve the matter which he immediately complied with and sent the photographs of the product received and the bill to OP No.1 on the same day, to which he never received any reply.  Subsequently, he received a call from OP No.1’s customer care representative that they cannot resolve the matter as OP No.2 has no policy of returning/refunding the product once OP No.2 sold to the customer and they closed the return request on 30.06.2019.          Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.       
2.           In its written statement, OP No.1  has pleaded that it acts as an intermediary through its web interface www.snapdeal.com and provides an electronic market place to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their product(s) to the general public at large and these sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by different persons/stakeholders.  It has further been pleaded that it acts as an intermediary between the actual seller and buyer of a product.  It has further been pleaded that the booked product was delivered to the complainant on 29.06.2019 and on the same date he complained that the item delivered  is duplicate (Chinese item) and was looking for full refund of the amount and as per process OP No.1 had asked the images of the product on 29.06.2019 but post which there has been no response from his side and therefore, he chosen to sell over the concerns raised regarding the product and the OP despite its wish is unable to help him. The remaining allegations were denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.         
3.           Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.2, seeking its version of the case. Since, nobody appeared on its behalf despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 04.12.2019.
4.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OP No.1 controverting their stand and reiterating the averments as made in the complaint.
6.           We have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with utmost care and circumspection. 
7.           After going through the evidence on record and the rival submissions of the parties, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted for the reasons stated hereinafter. On receipt of the product, the complainant immediately sent an e-mail to OP No.1 and registered return request for the item in question as the same was a duplicate one.  Besides this, the complainant had also sent the documents as required by OP No.1 through email dated 30.06.2019, annexed as Annexure C-5. However, in order to redress the grievance of the complainant, OP No.1 closed the said request without assigning any valid reason.   It is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The OPs have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice, as they failed to refund the invoice price of the duplicate product when requested by the Complainant. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the O Ps, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against it.
8.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under ;-

[a]      To refund Rs.2,699/- i.e. price of the product in question to the Complainant; and take back the product in question from the complainant, at its own expenses;

 

[b]      To pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]      To pay Rs.3,500/- as costs of litigation.

 

9.           The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the OPs; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @9% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  
10.           The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced 21/05/2021	Sd/-
	(RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER