DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 145/2017

No. DC/ Central/

vs.

Coram:       Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

                   Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

ORDER

Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

1.  The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Jitender Bhati (in short the complainant)  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs i.e. 1. The Manger, Snapdeal (in short OP1) and 2. Bathla Teletech Pvt. Ltd Hyd RR VL (in short OP 2). It is the case of the complainant that on 21.01.2017, he booked one mobile phone make I Phone SE (64GB) vide order no. 18067305015, IMEI No. 359142074627826, Invoice Number S85651/16-17/13110 dated 21.01.2017. It is also his case that after booking of the said mobile phone the complainant sent Rs. 38,990/- to OP2 through online mode.
2. On receipt of the aforesaid mobile phone from OP2, complainant came to know that the mobile phone under reference was defective and was also having a mismatched look. Thereafter, complainant lodged the complainant with OP2 on 25.01.2017 about the said defective mobile phone. Complainant has further stated that after the said complaint was lodged, OP2 visited the house of the complainant and took over the mobile phone from the custody of the complainant and a receipt dated 28.01.2017 was also issued to this effect.(Copy of the receipt of taking over the mobile phone by OP2 has also been submitted on record.)
3. The complainant has further alleged that he also approached the customer care centre of OP2 through online mode many a time but his complaint about this mobile phone was not heeded. Not only this, OP2 refused to refund the said amount paid to it for the purchase of the phone and remainders followed by repeated requests to OP2 in this regard yielded no result.
4. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, complainant has prayed for issuance of necessary directions in favour of the complainant and against the OP to return back the amount of Rs. 38,990/- to the complainant. The complainant has further prayed for award of legal and other expenses for harassment, mental torture meted out to him.
5. In its reply filed by OP1, it has been, inter alia, stated that OP1 only acts as an intermediary through its web interface WWW.Snapdeal.Com and provides a medium to various sellers in all over India to offer for sale and send their product(s) to the general public at large. OP1 has further stated that it does not directly or indirectly sell any product on its aforesaid website. It is also the case of OP1 that all products on website are sold by third party sellers who avail of the online marketplace services provided by it. It has also stated in its reply that;-

“The sellers directly raise invoices to the final customers for the products sold and bear all commercial risks. The customers purchasing products from such sellers directly make the payments for their purchases either on a pre-paid basis (net banking/ credit card/ debit card) or cash on delivery basis. The ultimate monetary beneficiary of such sale proceedings is the seller and not Opposite Party No. 1. It is pertinent to note that the complainant himself admitted the fact that the payment is received by the Opposite Party No. 2 only.”

6. In para 5 of its reply OP1 has also expressed that complainant has not made even a single allegation against the OP1 because he himself knew the fact that the OP1 is an intermediary only who facilitates the transaction and therefore, not liable for the complaint and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against OP1.
7. In para 12 of its reply, OP1 has, inter alia, mentioned that the product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by OP1 and OP1 has no role in providing delivery, replacement, refund of the product sold by an independent seller through the website of the OP1. It is also the case of OP1 that seller is responsible for delivery of goods to the customers, customer satisfaction and post-sale services. OP1 has also stated in its reply that complainant does not fall under the category of ‘Consumer’ for the OP1 as OP1 is neither a ‘trader’ nor a ‘service provider’ therefore, has pleaded that the amount paid for the product was received by OP2 only and that the OP2 is liable to refund the price of the product. No cause of action has arisen against OP1 as has been pleaded by it.
8. Perusal of the record reflects that OP2 was proceeded ex-parte on 13.09.2017.
9. Affidavit for evidence have been filed on record by the complainant and OP1 as well, wherein, the contents of the complaint and reply submitted on record by OP1 have been reiterated. OP1 in its affidavit for evidence has also referred some judgements which do not match in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
10. We have carefully considered the documents, reply, affidavits for evidence filed by complainant and OP1. We have also perused other documents/ mails exchanged between Op1 and the complainant which are available on record.
11. In the written reply aforementioned, OP1 has pleaded that it is the only intermediary and has no role to play about the complaint of the complainant. If that is so, what prompted the snapdeal i.e. OP1 to send a mail on 15.05.2017 addressed to complainant and repudiating the claim stating therein, inter alia, as under:-
12.  

Your return request for iPhone SE (64GB) cannot be completed

We understand that you are facing an issue with your item and wish to return it. We’re sorry that we will be unable to complete your request for refund or replacement.”

12. We also find on record text of a mail on behalf of OP1 addressed to the complainant which reads as under:-

“we have received NEFT details for your iPhone SE (64GB). Refund will be credited within 4 business days……..

Another text reads:-

Hi Jitendra,

You will receive your refund soon!

We have received your NEFT details and have initiated a refund of Rs. 39,089/- for your iPhone SE (64GB). You’ll have it in your account within 4 business days.”

13.   We also find on record further text of a SMS on behalf of OP1 to the complainant which reads as under:-

“Pick up Successful: Jitendra Singh, your iPhone SE (64GB) (Co…has been picked up and is on its way to our warehouse. Based on our quality check results, we’ll initiate refund of Rs. 39089 within next 2-6 days and confirm you via Email/SMS. You can also track your request in real time on the Snapdeal app-http://snpdl.in/”

14. In view of aforesaid mails exchanged between OP1 and complainant we are of the considered view that OP1 cannot escape from its liability so far as the refund of the deposited amount by the complainant for the mobile phone/ product under reference is concerned. The contents of the mail/SMS exchanged by OP1 with the complainant as aforementioned is sufficient to attract the liability of the OP1 along with OP2
15. The deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as mandated  in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are manifestly attracted on the part of both OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally.                        
16. Based on the aforesaid discussions and after giving thoughtful consideration, we directed the OPs as under:-

1. OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 38,990/- to the complainant along with 6% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization as OP1 and OP2 are jointly and severally liable for the same.

2. OPs are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- for legal expenses and harassment meted out to the complainant in the this regard.

3. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order failing which the interest component shall be at the rate of 7% p.a. instead of 6% as mentioned in para 1 above.

17. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 26^th September of 2022.