IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/171/2019.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
22.11.19 02.12.19 08.09.2022
Complainant: Biplab Khan,
Residing at Vill- Amtala & P.O.- Amtala,
P.S. Nowda, Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin-742121
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The Manager/Proprietor,
The Snapdeal,
246, Phase-III, Okhla Industrial Area,
New Delhi, Pin-110020.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Srabani Das
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : Saugata Biswas
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Subir Sinha Roy………………………………….Member.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY, MEMBER.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Biplab Khan (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Manager/ Proprietor, The Snapdeal, (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant has purchased one LACOSTE SUNGLASS Blue Square Sunglass (L 134) amounting Rs. 694/- vide Order No. 28984626098 from Snapdeal. The complainant informed the problem to the Snapdeal and they received the item on 06.06.2019 with confirmation reference No. 57755275 on 06.06.2019 but in reply the O.P. stated that they were unable to process the refund and replace the complainant’s item as it was different from what they had delivered. The complainant has received the reply on 11.06.19 and 24.07.2019 respectively that they have shipped the item back to the complaint’s original delivery address as it was different from their delivered item but till date complainant has not received the said Sunglass or any amount from them.
The complainant approached for times without number to the O.P. for proper remedy but the O.P. has not paid any heed to his complaint. Finding no other alternatives the complainant filed this instant case before this commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. for appropriate relief.
Defence Case
After service of the notice the O.P. appeared before this Commission by filing written version contending inter alia that the case is defective one for non-joinder of parties and the O.P. is not the seller of the said product. The seller of the product is DSTREAK Enterprise. Though the O.P. had received the item on 06.06.2019 which the complainant has returned but found that complainant has sent an item different than what was delivered to him. The O.P. i.e., Snapdeal is an online marketplace platform and act as intermediary which provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products general at large. So, there is no liability upon them so the case is liable to be dismissed against O.P.
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1 & 2
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
Undoubtedly the O.P. has purchased one LACOSTE SUNGLASS Blue Square Sunglass (L 134) amounting Rs. 694/- vide Order No. 28984626098 from Snapdeal and retuned back the item on 06.06.2019 but as per petition of complaint the complainant has not received back any sunglass or any amount till date. The O.P. stated that it is an online marketplace platform under the brand name/trademark “Snapdeal” through the website www.snapdeal.com and act as an intermediary to facilitate sales transactions between independent third party seller and independent customers. The OP is neither a trader nor service provider as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there does not exist any privity of contract between the complainant and the O.P. It is the seller who is only responsible for the product. The O.P. is only an intermediary through his web interface and it is the seller who sells directly and raises invoices to the final customer of the product sold and bear all commercial risks. The customers purchase the products from his seller directly either on prepaid basis or cash on delivery basis. The ultimate monetary beneficiary of such sale proceedings are the seller and not the O.P.
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant drew our attention to the fact that the complainant has refunded/ replaced the item which is different from the item delivered by the O.P. The complainant has failed to prove that he has returned the item which the O.P. has delivered to him.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us and the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocates of the both sides we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove his case and as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 22.11.2019 and admitted on 02.12.2019. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case is dismissed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/171/2019 be and same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. but without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
