Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/13/2017

Sri.C.Venkatesh S/o P.Chinappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorized Signatory,Shopclues - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.C.J.Lakshminarsimha

15 Feb 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:18.03.2017

DISPOSED      ON:07.02.2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 13/2017

 

DATED:  15^th FEBRUARY 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

……COMPLAINANT	C. Venkatesh, S/o P. Chinnappa, Age: 32 Years, Employee in District Registrar Office, DCRM Complex, 1st Floor, APMC Market Road, Chitradurga-577501.      (Rep by Sri.C.J. Laksminarasimha, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	The Authorized Signatory, Shopclues, Clues Network Pvt. Ltd., Recency Craft, F-2, Ground Floor, Saurabh Vihar, Hari Nagar Extension, Part-2, Near Lohiyaput, New Delhi, NCR-110044.     (Rep by Sri.R.N. Parthalinga, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N.SREENIVASAIAH : PRESIDENT     

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to return a sum of Rs.712/- with interest at the rate of 2% p.a, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, mental sufferings, loss of mental peace, annoyance and Rs.10,000/- towards costs in all a sum of Rs.30,712/- with interest and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, OP being the seller of bean bag cover and having online shopping with marketing unit having business concern of work private limited for bean bag covers.  The OP has given online offer for purchase of bean bag cover buy one get one free.  It is further submitted that, the complainant placed an order for bean bag cover under cash on delivery at Chitradurga and the shipping address of the complainant was at Chitradurga only.  Accordingly, the OP sent the said bean bag cover to the complainant and collected the consideration of Rs.712/- including unit price COD fee and shopping cost of bean bag cover.  The OP has not sent one more bag to the complainant as ordered for.  The Op has supplied only one bag instead of two bean bag covers.  Complainant requested several times but, the OP has not complied for the same till this day, it clearly shows that the OP has committed deficiency in service for non-supplying of another one bag as per the offer i.e., buy one get one free.  The complainant has issued legal notice to the OP through RPAD on 17.12.2016 calling upon the OP to comply the online offer.  Even after getting the knowledge of the same, OP neither replied to the said notice nor complied the terms of the notice till today.  The cause of action for this complaint arise at Chitradurga town when the OP has sold and supplied only one bean bag cover to the complainant instead of supplying two bean bag covers as per the offer.  Therefore, there is a deficiency in service and prayed for allow the complaint.

3.     After service of notice to the OP, OP appeared through Sri. R.N. Parthalinga, Advocate and filed version.  According to the OP, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The allegations made in the complaint are denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is denied that, the OP is the seller of the product and OP is only an intermediary in terms of Section 79 of the I.T Act. The complainant is not a consumer under the C.P Act.  In the instant complaint, the complainant has alleged deficiency of service on the part of OP which is an intermediary and at the outset, it is baseless, frivolous and vehemently denied that there was any deficiency of service.  Even otherwise, they have not admitted any deficiency in service.  The OP cannot be made liable for delivering to the complainant the Recency Craft XL bean bag cover since the said product was neither manufactured, made available nor sold by the OP but only displayed on its webside that too by the seller whereby the OP is merely facilitate the same.  The original seller of this product is Recency Craft whose address is F-2, Ground Floor, Sourabh Vihar, Hari Nagar Extension, Part-II, Near Lohiyapul, New Delhi and the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the ground that, the complainant is mis-joinder of parties since the OP is a mere intermediary through which the customer has placed the order with the seller.  The complaint filed by the complainant in any angle has no merit in it and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on the documents like Ex.A-1 to A-4 and closed his side.  OP has examined one Sri. Astha Pathela, Legal Analyst as DW-1 and Ex.B-1 and B-2 documents have been got marked and closed their side.

5.     Arguments heard. 

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has cheated the complainant for non-supplying of another one bag?

(2) What order?

 

7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

                Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     Point No.1:- It is not in dispute that, the OP is the seller of bean bag covers etc.  The complainant has placed an order for purchase of bean bag cover under cash on delivery.  The order placed by the complainant is at Chitradurga.  The OP has offered that, if the party purchased one bag, they will supply another one bag free.  As per the offer made by the OP, it has not supplied two bags to the complainant but, the OP has supplied only one bag to the complainant and collected consideration amount of Rs.712/- including unit price, COD fee and shopping cost.  The complainant has requested the OP for supply of another one bag but, the OP has not supplied the same.  Finally, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OP, the notice has been served to the OP as per Ex.A-1 to A-4.  The OP has taken a contention that, it is only an intermediary and it is not the manufacturer and further denied all the averments and allegations made in the complaint.  Here the OP has given an offer to the complainant and as per the offer, the OP has not followed.  Hence, the OP has committed deficiency in service. 

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and OP.  As per Ex.A-1 to 4, which clearly shows that, the complainant has placed for purchase of one bean bag cover from the OP.  As per offer, the OP has not supplied two bags to the complainant.  But the OP has collected Rs.712/- from the complainant and delivered only one bag.  The complainant asked the OP for not supplying another bag.  OP never care for it.  Finally, the complainant has issued legal notice to the complainant and requested to supply another one bag as offered by it.  The notice sent by the complainant has been served to the OP but, the OP has not given any reply and they have not settled the claim of the complainant.  As per Exhibits, it clearly shows that, the notice has been served to the OP.  The OP has produced one online bill also.  As per Ex.A-2 it shows that, the OP has collected Rs.712/- from the complainant but, failed to supply another one bag as per the offer made by it.  Therefore, this Forum comes to the conclusion that, the OP has committed deficiency of service for non-supplying of another one bag to the complainant.    Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

 

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to return an amount of Rs.712/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of collecting the above said amount from the complainant till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

The OP is at liberty to collect the above said amount from the manufacturer.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 

                                                            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 15/02/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

           

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:- Sri. Astha Pathela, Legal Analyst by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Legal Notice dated 17.12.2016
02	Ex.A-2:-	Copy of Tax Invoice
03	Ex.A-3:-	Postal receipt
04	Ex.A-4:-	Postal Acknowledgement

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Copy of Press note
02	Ex.B-2:-	Copy of user agreemnent

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**