Complainant
Versus
Snapdeal through its CEO, 246-Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III, New Delhi (www.snapdeal.com )
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Ajay Shanker, Advocate
For the Opposite Party: Sh.Randeep Singh, Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Tarundeep Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that Opposite Party is Online Shopping Company, working under the name and style ‘Snapdeal’, with its office at New Delhi and as per the information loaded on the site, the company has its CEO, therefore, the service of the Opposite Party is sought through its CEO at New Delhi. As per the available scheme of the Opposite Party on its site, the complainant placed his order on 14.4.2015 for the purchase of Epson Workforce All in one Printer-M200, Product Code 7595648266, with Unit Price Re.1/- with delivery charges of Rs.30/- and paid Rs.31/- in all debit through the account No. 34532506576 maintained with State Bank of India and this order was confirmed by Opposite Party vide Order ID-5790731343. Copies of orders and confirmation of order are attached. Opposite Party further confirmed that the delivery of the item will take place anywhere between 1 to 4 days depending on the location being served, copy of the e-mail is attached herewith. Opposite Party further verified the order of the complainant, copy whereof is attached herewith. Estimate dispatch date of the printer was given 16th April, 2015. When the purchased printer was not received by the complainant, he lodged a complaint on the site of the Opposite Party, but however, the Opposite Party vide e-mail cancelled the order arbitrarily on 16.4.2015. It was intimated that Opposite Party would be unable to process the order of the complainant due to stock issues, copy of e-mail whereof is attached. As a matter of fact, at the time of placing the order and confirmation of order, the stock of Epson Printer was available on the site of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party vide e-mail further assured the complainant that his issue has been forwarded to the Team responsible and it will surely update him with the resolution at the earliest and issued request No. 18584451. But till date the Opposite Party has failed to deliver the purchased item i.e. Epson Workforce All in one Printer-M200, to the complainant at his door step despite receipt of costs of printer plus transportation charges. From the above actual and factual facts, it is celar that the Opposite Party is liable for great negligence, carelessness, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant has suffered a great mental pain, agony, harassment, inconvenience at their hands for which the complainant is also entitled to claim compensation estimated at Rs.20,000/- and also costs of this complainant amounting to Rs.5000/-. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no legal entity by the name of snapdeal. www.snapdeal.com is a website which is owned by Jasper Infotech Private Limited; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the answering Opposite Party is neither a necessary party nor proper party for the adjudication of the complaint. Further, the complaint is also bad under law for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has failed to implead the actual seller of the product which was sought to be purchased by the complainant, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed; that answering Opposite Party is an ‘intermediary’ as per the Information Technology Act, 2000 and is therefore in accordance with Sec 79 of the IT Act, 2000, it is not liable for any information (including product, product price, etc.) which it displays on behalf of the third party sellers on its website- Snapdeal.com. Opposite Party is neither a trader/ seller nor a manufacturer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 81 of the IT Act, 2000 clearly provides that its provisions would apply notwithstanding any other provision of the law. Further the complainant while using Opposite Party’s online market place website-snapdeal.com had understood and acknowledged the terms and conditions laid down by the answering Opposite Party on its website which clearly states that Opposite Party reserves its right, to refuse or cancel any order for reasons such as non–availability of the product with the seller, inaccuracies or errors in pricing information, etc; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. As per the term of use and terms of sale of the Snapdeal website which was agreed to by the complainant, the courts in Delhi would have the jurisdiction to decide any dispute between the complainant and the Opposite Party. In parawise reply, it is submitted that Opposite Party only acts as an intermediary between the actual seller of the products/ goods and the purchaser. Opposite Party merely provides a platform for the independent sellers to list its product on the website of the Opposite Party and the independent buyers to buy the product. The product information including the product description, product prices etc. are all displayed on the website behalf of the seller of the product. The sellers independently process the order and raise an invoice to the customer. It is submitted that the order placed by the complainant and had not been confirmed and it was under the ‘verification’ status when it was cancelled. Further, only an estimate date of delivery was given to the complainant thereby meaning that there was no confirmation about the order or delivery date from the seller’s end. It is pertinent to mention here that the order of the complainant was being verified and it is during the state of verification that it was found that the product was out of stock as well as the price displayed was incorrect. Accordingly, the order placed by the complainant was not confirmed and was cancelled. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant made in the witness box as his own witness and filed duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced documents i.e. e-mail copies Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence.
4. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Shine Joy Ex.OP1, copy of resolution Ex.OP2, copy of terms and conditions of the company Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. It has vehemently contended on behalf of the complainant that the complainant placed an order for the purchase of Epson Workforce All in one Printer-M200, Product Code 7595648266, with Unit Price Re.1/- with delivery charges of Rs.30/- and paid Rs.31/- in all debit through the account No. 34532506576 maintained with State Bank of India and this order was confirmed by Opposite Party vide Order ID-5790731343. Copies of order and confirmation of order are annexed as Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 respectively. Opposite Party further confirmed that the delivery of the item will take place anywhere between 1 to 4 days depending on the location being served, copy of the e-mail accounts for Ex.C4. Opposite Party further verified the order of the complainant, copy whereof is Ex.C5. Estimate dispatch date of the printer was given 16th April, 2015. But however, the delivery of the item purchased has not been made till date. As a matter of fact, the Opposite Party vide e-mail, copy whereof is Ex.C6 dated 16.4.2015 cancelled the order of the complainant arbitrarily. It was intimated that Opposite Party would be unable to process the order of the complainant due to stock issues. However, the fact remains that the product was in stock when the order was placed and therefore, it was the duty of the Opposite Party to comply with the order as per their commitment. The Opposite Party, however, vide e-mail, copy of which is Ex.C7 assured the complainant that the issue has been forwarded to the Team responsible and it will surely update him with the resolution at the earliest and issued request No. 18584451, copy whereof is Ex.C8 on record. But, however, the Opposite Party has failed to supply the item i.e. Epson Workforce All in one Printer-M200, to the complainant so far. As such, the Opposite Party is negligent, careless & deficient in service and it amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party. The complainant has suffered a great mental pain, agony, harassment, inconvenience at the hands of Opposite Party for which the complainant is also entitled to claim compensation estimated at Rs.20,000/- and also claim costs of this complainant amounting to Rs.5000/-. It is therefore, contended that the complaint may be allowed accordingly.
7. But however, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant had placed an order to purchase Epson Workforce All in one Printer-M200, through website of the Opposite Party. The grievance of the complainant has been that Opposite Party has not supplied the product for which the order was placed. On the other hand, Opposite Party has contended that the order placed by the complainant through website of the Opposite Party was cancelled by the Opposite Party due to non availability of the product & the amount of Rs.31/- has already been remitted back to the complainant. As a matter of fact, the Opposite Party only acts as an intermediary between the actual seller of the products/ goods and the purchaser. As per section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the term ‘ intermediary’ has been defined as under:-
“Intermediary, with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives stores or transmits that record 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-action sites, online-market places and cyber cafes.”
The complainant has placed an order for purchasing the product i.e. Epson Workforce All in one Printer-M200, in question through e-mail of the company and as per section 2(w) of Information Technology Act, 2000, the Opposite Party is only an intermediary through its web interface www.snapdeal.cm and provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their product(s) to the general public at large. Seller and manufacturer of the product in question were necessary parties, but the complainant has not impleaded either the seller or the manufacturer of Epson Workforce All in one Printer-M200 in question, as parties to the present complaint. As such, the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Since the Opposite Party is only a intermediary under section 79 of the Information Technology Act, it is not liable for any of the transactions entered into by the parties through its website. As such, no cause of action or any deficiency in service is made out against Opposite Party. Consequently, instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 02-06-2016. (S.S.Panesar) President
(Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
hrg
