Delhi

West Delhi

CC/20/116

VINIT PATHARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SNAPDEAL - Opp.Party(s)

16 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUME DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST DISTRICT, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI

 

CC No.   116/20

In re:-

Vinit Pathri

s/o Ram Saran

r/o 267-268,

Raghubir Nagar, Tagore Garden,

West Delhi-110027                                                                       ………..Complainant

 

 VERSUS                              

Snapdeal

362-363, ASF Centre

Udyog Vihar Industrial Area

Phase-4, Gurgaon-122016                                                         ……………opposite party

                                                                                               

Coram:                                                                                                

1. SONICA MEHROTRA (PRESIDENT)
2. RICHA JINDAL (MEMBER)
3. ANIL KOUSHAL (MEMBER)

Date of Institution: 01.09.2020

Judgment reserved on: 03.03.2022

Date of Decision:16.03.2022

ORDER BY: RICHA JINDAL (MEMBER)

O R D E R

File taken up through video conferencing

 

 

 

1. This complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 alleging deficiency in service committed by the respondent company namely “ snapdeal” in respect of the services availed by the complainant while in his capacity as a listed seller on the respondent’s e-commerce website.

 

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

 

1. the complainant is a resident of Raghubir Nagar, NewDelhi and has his company namely “ Toruk Makto” as a listed seller on www.snapdeal.com which is engaged in a small business of selling products by listing them on the respondent'se-commerce website namely “Snapdeal” and the respondent is a company offering services to the complainant and other businesses by listing their products on their e-commerce website and also provides them with the logistics required for the successful delivery of the listed products to its consumers.

 

2. In January 2020, the complainant in acceptance of respondents offer to list his products on the respondent’s e-commerce website namely “Snapdeal” after getting assurance from them that it will help him boost and promote his small business, listed his products on the respondent’s e-commerce website which included Toruk Makto Juicer Blender, Electric kettle, Plastic Coffee Mugs, Bluetooth Speakers, Posture Belts etc.

 

3. The complainant, in the beginning, started getting some orders but to his utter shock, most of the orders consisting majority of “Toruk Makto Blender Juice 25 Watt Citrus Juicer” were returned by Snapdeal employees as well as the customers, devoid of any reasonable grounds to return a perfectly functioning product. Furthermore, such returned products were sent to be in a damaged condition received by the complainant which resulted in irreparable losses to the complainant’s business.

 

4. The complainant entered into an agreement with the respondent beforethe listing of his products on the respondent’s e-commerce website and furnished the condition required by the respondent to provide the bank account details in which the number of products sold by the complainant was to be credited.

 

5. The complainant in the month of February 2020 sold his products by the way of COD service provided by Snapdeal to their consumers and an amount of Rs.7130/- (Rupees seven thousand One Hundred and Thirty only) became due to the complainant in his snapdeal account.  The complainant being the first time seller on Snapdeal contacted the respondent company on their portal to enquire about the payment procedure, however, no reasonable answers were provided to the complainant. The complainant basing his trust on the goodwill of the respondent company waited for the payment of his dues.  Since February 2020, no money for the product sold was credited to the complainant’s account by the respondent.

 

6. The complainant in pursuit of his due amount and to address his grievance contacted snapdeal Customer Care via telephonic medium and also addressed innumerable complaints to Snapdeal on their seller portal.Despite these various measures taken by the complainant to reach the respondent to lodge his complaint, he was dispensed with vague replies and also unmet consolations that his grievances will be resolved shortly.

    

 

7. That irrespective of the casual behaviour on part of the respondent by refusing to pay importance to the complainant’s grievance as stated earlier, the complainant had been persistently trying to get into contact with the respondent’s company time and again, but to his misfortune, no heed was paid by the respondent’s company to the complainant’s repeatedly and his efforts to connect with the respondent proved to be in vain.

    

 

8. the respondent, misappropriated the due amount of the complainant by not paying him the sales amount listed on the respondent’s e-commerce website to which he was legally entitled to and the amount which was necessary for the complainant, a small business to cover his day to day expenses and fulfil his obligations.These practice on the part of the respondent company shows the malafide intention and the deficiency of services on the part of the respondent company.

 

1. the respondent has failed to resolve the issues of the complainant and has operated in complete bad faith by not only ignoring the repeated attempts made by the complainant to contact the respondent and raise his complaint about the due amount arising out of the transaction carried out successfully.

 

10. the complainant, having left with no other option, served the respondent company with legal notice dated 19.06.2020 vide email calling for the recovery of dues worth Rs. 7130/- (Rupees Seven Thousand one hundred and thirty only) along with interest payable for the delayed period @24%pa and the charges for servicing this legal notice inter alia.Such deficiency in services by a major e-commerce website such as Snapdeal and misappropriation of such a minuscule amount translate to display of poor values on part of the firm.

 

11. the respondent company responded to the legal notice dated 19.06.2020 on 23.06.2020 for asking for the legible copy of the annexure attached with the legal notice, which shows the due delivery of the notice to the said legal notice.Furthermore, the respondent company was provided with the same through an e-mail dated 24.06.2020.

 

     l.the complainant was befuddled to see that the respondent company, rather than taking the notice seriously and clearing the legally recoverable dues of the complainant, vaguely replied to the notice on 23.07.2020 by stating that the due amount has already been paid.Furthermore, they declined to state where the amount has been paid to the complainant.

•  since services were deficient on part of the respondent company namely “Snapdeal” in the event of falling to credit the mentioned sales amount in the bank account of the complainant and no resolve was extended by the respondent in response to the issue raised by the complainant in his capacity as a listed seller, the complainant seeks recovery of his due amount and losses.

 

3. The complainant filed the present complaint to  seek recovery of his dues as qualified above as well as compensation and other amounts as qualified above.

 

4. After going through the material placed on record, it reveals that the main question involved in the present complaint is whether the Complainant is a consumerand hence covered under the definition of the consumer as per Consumer Protection Act,2019

 

5. The only aspect for consideration before us is whether the Complainant was excluded from the purview of the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on account of the subject transaction amounting to sale or for being for a commercial purpose.As per the law of land, it is already settled that issue of maintainability can be decided at any stage. Reliance is placed on the following judgements:-

 

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case tilted as “ Hewlett Packard India Ltd. Vs Shri Ramachander Gehlot” in CA No. 7107/2003 decided on 16.02.2004 held that

 

“ Issue of maintainability has to be decided before admitting or hearing the matter on merit.”

 

8. in FIRST APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2017 in a case titled as“KOSHY VARGHESE THAVALATHI HOUSE, MELE VETTIPURAM,PATHANAMTHITTA Versus HDFC BANK LTD. & 2 ORS.” Held that

“ It is settled law that the question in which law point is involved can be decided at any stage of the proceedings of the case.

In view of the above, the present Appeal as also the Complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant before the State Commission is dismissed being not maintainable with no order as to cost.”                              

6. A perusal of the record shows that the present complaint was filed in the month of August 2020 and  the matter was listed on 1/9/2020 for the first time and argued the matter on admission and when the queries were raised by the bench, counsel for the complainant sought time to satisfy the court. Thereafter matter adjourned to 22/9/2020, 17/11/2020, 16/12/2020, 3/01/2021, 26/2/2021, 20/04/2021, 8/06/2021, 13/09/2021, 16/11/2021, 28/01/2022 and finally on 3/3/2022. But the complainant or his counsel never appeared before the court. However, for the maintainability or admission of the complaint, the appearance of the complainant is not necessary.

 

7. It would be pertinent to begin our discussion by referring to the definition of the term “consumer” under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019:

 

“2(7) “consumer” means any person who—

 

1. partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

 

2. hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

 

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause—

 

1. the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person ofgoods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;

 

(b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;

 

8. in order to decide the preliminary issue, we are guided by the judgement of Hon’ble NCDRC on a similar issue in the case of“Fruit and Vegetable Project, New Delhi v. N. Sankar Reddy, III (1994) CPJ 163 (NC)” that a seller could not take the benefit of the 1986 Act, held that

“ the farmer was not a “consumer” since he was selling his produce to the opposite party. It was also held that in any case, the issue of specific performance emanating from a contract between the parties could not be the subject matter of a consumer dispute. The Appellant in the instant case has referred to this reasoning adopted by the National Commission to substantiate its case.”

 

9. In view of the law so laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, the complainant cannot be held to be a "consumer" and the complaint filed by her does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The same could not have been entertained by the District Commission and is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Even otherwise, it is a commercial transaction between the companies.

 

10. Hon’ble NCDRC again in Sakthi Sugar Ltd. v/s Sridhar Sahoo 1999 (2) CPJ 4 held in a similar case that

 

“the complainant was in a position of the seller, the dispute with OP (buyer) could not be termed as Consumer Dispute as it involves the issue of specific performance of a contract.”

 

11. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to seek him appropriate remedy before the proper authority under the law of land.

 

12. The time spent by him before the District Commission while prosecuting the complaint shall be excluded by that authority while computing the period of limitation for filing the case before appropriate authority, etc.

A copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of cost by post. Order be sent to www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(Richa Jindal)         Member

(Anil Kumar Koushal)               Member

(Sonica Mehrotra)                         President