Complaint filed on: 11.09.2014

                                                                                                                             Complaint Disposed on:26.05.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.

COMPLAINT NO.99/2014

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF MAY 2017

:PRESENT:

HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER

HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

Sri.M.V.Laxshminarayan,

S/o M.H.Venkataramanappa,

Aged about 40 years,

Off: District Consumer Forum,

Hosamane Extension,

Chikmagalur City.

(By Sri/Smt. D.T.Gowtham, Advocate)

V/s

OPPONENT:

1. The Manager,

Off:Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd.,

Fremont Terraces, #3580,

3^rd Floor, 13 G Main Road,

4^th Cross, Indiranagar, 2^nd

Stage, Bangalore-560038.

2. The Manager,

7n7 Shop, S2086,

Belgium Square, 2^nd Floor,

Near Lords Plaza Hotel,

Delhi Gate, Surat, Gujarat-395003.

3. The Senior Manager,

(Query Regarding Online Shopping)

H.O.Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd 246,

1^st Floor, Phase-II, Okhla Industrial

Area, New Delhi-110020.

(OP No.1 &3 By Sri/Smt.Halekote A. Thejaswi, Advocate)

By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,

:O R D E R:

The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos.1 to 3 alleging unfair trade practice in selling a defective battery to the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against Ops to replace the battery with new one or in alternative refund an amount of Rs.227/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- for unfair trade practice.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:

        The complainant had purchased Nokia mobile battery BL-5C through online shopping at Chikmagalur for Rs.197/- with courier charges of Rs.30/- from snapdeal.com and the reference number is SLP 21632113, after online shopping complainant received the battery on 17.06.2014 through Blue Dart courier. Subsequently, complainant inserted the said battery to his mobile handset and followed the instructions, but complainant noticed that even after charging the battery for long time as per the instructions the battery used to become low only after making 3 calls and also noticed that it is a defective one. The complainant due to insertion of the battery was not able to use the mobile handset and had used to shut down frequently. Hence, he suffered inconvenience, immediately he contacted customer care number and informed with respect to the quality of the battery. For which the concerned officer of the Op No.2 & 3 company have agreed to solve the problem by delivering the new battery within 7 days, but so far the Op No.2 & 3 have not supply the new battery.

 Thereafter complainant issued a legal notice and called upon the Ops to replace the new battery with defective one. Subsequently, the Ops have sent two new batteries and even after replacing the said batteries the cell phone used to shut down immediately. The said batteries are also defective one. The complainant after receiving the said batteries had enquired with mobile technician, where he noticed that there is a problem in the battery, again the complainant informed the Ops with regard to the same and requested the Ops to supply original battery or to refund an amount of Rs.227/- which was paid towards purchase of the battery. But Ops have not turned up to the request made by complainant. Further the complainant also checked the said battery with Nokia care and where he noticed that the said battery delivered by Op No.2 & 3 is not original and Ops have delivered a defective/fake battery which resulted in inconvenience and loss of communication of the complainant.         Hence, Op No.1 to 3 rendered unfair trade practice in selling a defective battery to the complainant.

        Hence, prays for direction against Ops to replace the defective battery or to refund the said amount and also prays for payment of compensation of Rs.5,000/-for unfair trade practice.

3. After service of notice Op no.1 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed version and contended that the company Jasper Infotech Private Limited has registered office at 246, First Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, owns and operated the online website www.snapdeal.com and these Ops running a business under brand/trademark snapdeal through website which is a online market place,  a online market place a type of electronic commerce website where product and inventory information is provided by number of sellers in an online market place, consumer transactions processed by online market place operator and then delivered by participating sellers.

        Ops further contended that the Op No.1 only acts as an intermediary through its web interface www.snapdeal.com and provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products to the general public at large. It is submitted that these sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by different persons/stakeholders. That the answering Op No.1 does not directly or indirectly sell any products on its website www.snapdeal.com. Rather, all the products on website are sold by third party sellers, who avails of the market place services provided by the answering Op No.1. The sellers directly raise invoices to the final customers for the products sold and bear all commercial risks. The warranty on the products is provided either by the manufacturer companies or by the sellers. That based on its terms and conditions for seller, the answering Op No.1 has made it mandatory that sellers can sell or deal with only original and genuine products on its online market place. Every seller selling products on the website has to execute an agreement with a representation and undertaking to the answering Op no.1 that it will sell only genuine and original products on the website and will not sell any duplicate, used or spurious products and that it has proper authority to sell these products.

        Op No.1 and 3 further contended that the present complaint has made snapdeal as Op No.1, which is not a legal entity. It is submitted that the correct name of the company is Jasper Infotech Private Limited and snapdeal is a website owned and operated by Jasper Infotech Private Limited, through certain transactions are being carried out. Hence, the present complaint ought to be dismissed for misjoinder of the party. That Jasper Infotech Private Limited is an intermediary within the meaning of the provisions section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and has been protected against any litigations or claims from the general public and hence, the present complaint ought to be dismissed in limine on this ground alone.

        Op further contended that the said Jasper Infotech Private Limited registered office at New Delhi and the transactions is behind territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, there is a lack territorial jurisdiction in the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

        Op further contended that these Ops merely operate a website www.snapdeal.com, it acts as an intermediary between the actual seller and the buyer of the product. The answering Op No.1 does not sell any product. All the products sold through the answering Op No.1’s website www.snapdeal.com are sold directly by various sellers to the end customers and invoices are generated directly by such sellers to the customer. The warranty on the products is provided either by the manufacturing companies or by the sellers selling the products on the website. The complainant failed to provide documents in support of his contention that the battery sent by Ops is defective or fake as alleged in the complaint, there is no cause of action arose against these Ops. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint, they are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed in the complaint and there is no unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and Ops also not liable to replace the battery as alleged by complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.5. Op No.1 & 3 not filed any affidavits.

5.     Heard the arguments.

6.     In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?

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

1. Point No.1: Affirmative. 
2. Point No.2: As per Order below. 

: R E A S O N S :

POINT NOs. 1 & 2:

8. There is no dispute that the complainant had purchased one battery from online trading through snapdeal.com by paying Rs.227/- and after purchase of the said battery the complainant noticed it is a defective one, immediately informed to manufacturer and also seller. For which the manufacturer and seller has sent another two batteries to the complainant even the said batteries also found a defect and complainant due to usage of the said batteries has suffered inconvenience and loss of communication. Hence, alleges unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and prays for replace the said amount or to replace the battery. For which Op No.1 and 3 filed version and contended that there is no cause of action arose in the complaint, they are running online business as a intermediator between seller and purchaser. The complainant has not made out the prima-facie case as alleged in the complaint. The complainant has not produced any required documents to establish the battery is defective or fake one. Hence, submits there is no any unfair trade practice and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

9. On going through the pleadings, documents and affidavit produced by complainant, we found the complainant has alleged unfair trade practice on the part of Op No.1 to 3 in selling a defective battery and batteries produced before this Forum. On verification of the said batteries we noticed the batteries after full charge for long time is not working properly after insertion. Hence, it is a clear case of unfair trade practice on the part of Ops in selling a defective battery to the complainant.

        During course of trial advocate for Ops have suggested for settlement of the claim, but so far Ops have not settled the matter. Hence, we hereby direct the Ops to provide new battery having no defects (original) to the complainant or in alternative to refund an amount of Rs.227/- to the complainant. Further Ops are liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- for unfair trade practice along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-  

: O R D E R :

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
2. OP Nos.1 to 3 are directed to replace the battery with a new one/original having no defects or in alternative to refund an amount of Rs.227/- and also pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand Rupees only) along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand Rupees only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which 9% P.A. interest will be charged till realization.
3. Send free copies of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 26^th day of May 2017).

  (H.MANJULA)         (B.U.GEETHA)      (RAVISHANKAR)

      Member                   Member                President

ANNEXURES

Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:

Ex.P.1              - Copy of blue dart cash & delivery receipt.

Ex.P.2              - Copy of computer generated invoice dtd:10.06.14.

Ex.P.3             - Copy of way bill dtd:17.06.14.

Ex.P.4              - Office copy of the legal notice dtd:13.07.14.

Ex.P.5              - Copy of three postal receipts.

Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:

NIL

Dated:26.05.2017                         President 

                                        District Consumer Forum,

                                                  Chikmagalur.            

RMA