Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/97

Manohar Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Concerned Official Snap deal - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Sep 2016

ORDER

      DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        97

Date of Institution :  12.04.2016

Date of Decision :     20.09.2016

Manohar Lal alias Monu Arora s/o Sh Ashok Kumar r/o # B/1178, Aggarwal Gali, Prem Nagar, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

Concerned Official/Manager, Snap deal having its office at 246, 1^st Floor, Phase-III, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. Pin Code-110020. India.

                                                                                                       .......Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Anil Kumar Chawala, Ld counsel for complainant,

 Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                   Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to supply Numero Uno Black Sweat Shirt ordered vide order dated 26.11.2015 or to refund the amount of Rs.993/- paid by complainant and for further directing Ops to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith litigation expenses.

2                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant ordered a Numero Uno  Black Sweat shirt through online mode from OPs vide order dated 26.11.2015 and paid Rs.923/- for this purpose through Indian Overseas Bank, Kotkapura, Punjab from his Bank account bearing no.224701000002080 and Rs.70/-charged as free charge from his account totalling Rs.993/-, but OPs neither sent the said Numero Uno  Black Sweat Shirt nor refunded the amount to complainant. OPs themselves cancelled the order without any consent of complainant. Complainant daily visited the site to check the status of his order  or of refund but all in vain. OPs assured complainant that if order of a customer is not served, then OPs refund the amount to complainant within 7 days in the bank account of complainant, but in case of complainant, OPs have intentionally and deliberately harassed the complainant by not sending the sweat shirt ordered by him. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for directing OPs to supply Numero Uno Black Sweat Shirt ordered vide order dated 26.11.2015 or to refund the amount of Rs.993/- paid by complainant and for further directing Ops to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

3                      The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21.04.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4               On receipt of the notice, OPs filed reply taking preliminary objections that OPs operate their online marketplace platform under the brand name/trademark “Snapdeal” through website www.snapdeal.com, which is an online market place. The  website is an electronic platform, which acts as an intermediary or medium to facilitate sales transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end consumers and it enables independent third party sellers to list, advertise and offer to sell their products and services to the users of website. Website provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products to general public at large and these sellers are the separate entities being controlled and managed by different persons or stakeholders. It is  averred that Ops do not sell the products directly or indirectly, rather it acts like a platform to facilitate the sale. Ops are just like the online shopping mall, wherein different independent third party sellers advertise, showcase and offer their products to sale to third party buyers, who visit the mall and in case of any defect in goods sold by such sellers, only seller is liable for consequences and not the owner of the shopping mall. Complaint filed by complainant is false and vague and is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. It is averred that complainant has suppressed the material facts and has not come to the Forum with clean hands and relief sought by him can not be granted to him. However, on merits ld counsel for Ops has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs as only seller is responsible for the delivery of goods to the complainant. Moreover, Ops have not charged any fees from complainant for using the services available on online marketplace platform “Snapdeal.com’ and even complainant does not come under the definition of consumer. The OPs in arrangement with the seller had already refunded the price of shirt to complainant. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                         Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and Ex C-2 and documents Ex C-3 and C-10 and then, closed the evidence.

6                            In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sine Joy as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 5 and then evidence of OPs was closed by order of this Forum.

7                                   We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

8                            Ld Counsel for complainant contended that complainant ordered a Numero Uno Black Sweat shirt through online mode from OPs vide order dated 26.11.2015 and paid Rs.923/- for this purpose through Indian Overseas Bank, Kotkapura, Punjab from his Bank account bearing no.224701000002080 and Rs.70/-charged as free charge from his account totalling Rs.993/-, but OPs neither sent the said Numero Uno  Black Sweat Shirt nor refunded the amount to complainant. OPs themselves cancelled the order without any consent of complainant. Complainant daily visited the site to check the status of his order or of refund but all in vain. OPs assured complainant that if order of a customer is not served, then OPs refund the amount to complainant within 7 days in the bank account of complainant, but in case of complainant, OPs have intentionally and deliberately harassed the complainant by not sending the sweat shirt ordered by him. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for directing OPs to supply Numero Uno Black Sweat Shirt ordered vide order dated 26.11.2015 or to refund the amount of Rs.993/- paid by complainant and for further directing Ops to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses.

9                            To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for OPs asserted that complainant has levelled false allegations against OPs. It is asserted that OPs operate their online marketplace platform under the brand name/trademark “Snapdeal” through website www.snapdeal.com, which is an online market place. Their website is an electronic platform, which acts as an intermediary between consumers and sellers to facilitate sales transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end consumers and it enables independent third party sellers to list, advertise and offer to sell their products and services to the users of website. Website provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products to general public at large and these sellers are the separate entities being controlled and managed by different persons or stakeholders. It is averred that Ops do not sell the products directly or indirectly, rather it acts like a platform to facilitate the sale. Ops are just like the online shopping mall, wherein different independent third party sellers advertise, showcase and offer their products to sale to third party buyers, who visit the mall and in case of any defect in goods sold by such sellers, only seller is liable for consequences and not the owner of the shopping mall. Complaint filed by complainant is false and vague and is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. Complainant has suppressed the material facts and has not come to the Forum with clean hands and relief sought by him cannot be granted to him. Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as only seller is responsible for the delivery of goods to the complainant. Moreover, Ops have not charged any fees from complainant for using the services available on online marketplace platform “Snapdeal.com’ and even complainant is not their consumer. The OP in arrangement with the seller had already refunded the price of shirt to complainant. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10                                    We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the evidence and record placed on file by respective parties.

11                                    The case of complainant is that he placed an order with Ops through online mode for supply of Numero Uno Black Sweat Shirt vide order dated 26.11.2015 and also paid Rs.923/-through Indian Overseas Bank from his account and also Rs.70/-as free charge i.e he paid total of Rs.993/-to OPs for providing him the said sweat shirt, but OPs cancelled the ordered placed by him and neither sent the said sweat shirt nor refunded the amount paid to them by complainant. In reply, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. As per OPs they act only like a platform between sellers and online website users and they have no role to play if seller has not sent the product ordered by complainant to him. They have refuted all the allegations and argued that they are not liable to make payment of any claim as sought by complainant.

12                             From the careful perusal of record, this Forum is of considered opinion that it is admitted case of the parties that complainant placed an order of purchase for black sweat shirt through the website of OPs and made payment for it. The case of the OPs is that they are working like online shopping malls and there is no role of OPs regarding sale and purchase, sale delivery and payment of that article. The third party sellers directly sell their products to the buyers and only they are responsible for the sale and purchases made through their website and OPs are not responsible for those acts. From the perusal of the file, copies of  SMS, e-mails etc Ex C-6 to 8, which are regarding placing of order by complainant for purchase of shirt in question and further regarding the cancellation of his order. All these SMSs and e-mails are sent  by ops to complainant and not by any third party seller. Further the price of above said article is also deposited in the account of OPs directly and not in the account of third party seller. The Ops cannot say that they are not responsible and they have no role in the sale purchase of goods through their website and it is a contract between third party seller and buyer wherein all the communications regarding the orders are directly made between the customers by Ops and the payment for goods is also received by the OPs in their account.

13                             From the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that act of OPs for non delivery of goods to customer after receiving the price of goods amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Hence, the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed. However, complainant submitted that during the pendency of present complaint, he received refund for the price of sweat shirt made by OPs in his bank account. However, complainant is entitled to compensation on account of mental harassment and agony suffered by him.  OPs are directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses incurred by him. Compliance of this order be made from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 20.09.2016

Member                          President                       (P Singla)                            (Ajit Aggarwal)