Between:

Sri Bonthu Venkata Giridhar, S/o Pentayya, Hindu, aged 28 years,

Resident of D/No.27-1-21, Kapu Veedhi, Dasannapeta,

Vizianagaram.                                                                                                                                                                                             ....Complainant

 And

1. The Manager, Snap Deal.com, 240,

Ground Floor, Okhla Phase – 3, New Delhi – 110 020.

2. Arunodaya Communications, Rep., by its Authorized person,

D/No.14-2-28, Budi Veedhi Junction, P.B.Road, Vizianagaram.

3. LAVA International Limited, Rep., by its Customer Care Officer,

A-56, Sector 64, Noida 201 301, Uttar Pradesh, India.

16-6-2014, signed by the Advocate for the complainant.

                                                                          ....Respondents

          This case is coming on for hearing before us in the presence of Sri B.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Complainant, Sri A.N.V.Anjani Kumar Advocate for Opposite Party No.1, petition against O.P.2 is dismissed and 2 and having stood over for consideration the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

 SRI T.SRIRAMA MURTHY, PRESIDENT

          This is the complaint filed by the complainant seeking relief to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.3,404/- together with interest @ 24% p.a., from 3-11-2011 to till the date of the realization by taking the mobile back from the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards courier charges and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- together with interest at 24% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint towards the loss damages pain and suffering sustained by the complainant besides costs on the following averments. 

          The 1^st respondent gave vide publicity about the products being sold by the them in its sites at various places including the item Viz., LAVA A 11 Dual Sim Mobil Phone and induced the complainant to purchase the same stating the said product is very good.  The complainant placed an order to purchase LAVA A 11 Dual Sim Mobile phone on 3-11-2011 and paid a sum of Rs.3,404/- at Vizianagaram to the 1^st respondent and accordingly the 1^st respondent booked the order placed by the complainant and having received the mobile sent the same to the complainant on 7-11-2012 at Vizianagaram.  The complainant astonished to see that the mobile did not working properly as there is problem with respect to Ear Grill Speaker and when the said fact was brought to the notice of said respondents, they pleaded their regret for the same and requested to retain to the respondent and accordingly on the said date itself the complainant returned the same to the 1^st respondent with a hope that the defect in the mobile will be cleared off.  The 1^st respondent did not get the defects rectified inspite of repeated demands made  by the complainant and on 7-12-12 the said mobile was returned back to the complainants without rectifying the defects in it.

          The respondents tampered its mobile and removed its body and the volume rocker is not working and moving and when the said fact was not brought to the notice and the      and requested the complainant to return back the sale and though the complainant handed over the sale to the respondent they did not get the cell rectified.  Since there is deficiency in service dereliction of duty on the part of O.Ps the complainant is constrained to file the complaint for the above said relief.  The complaint against 2^nd respondent was dismissed.  Though the notice was served on O.P and the E.Mail they did not appear in court to contest the matter.  The 1^st respondent filed counter traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and has averred that there is no Consumer and Service provider relationship in between the parties and the Forum at Vizianagaram is not having junction to entertain the complaint as there is no deficiency in service or dereliction in duty on the part of O.Ps and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          It is averred that there is no cause of action to file the complaint and as the same is devoid of merits and is therefore liable to be dismissed.  It is averred that 1^st respondent owns operates the web site www.snapdeal.com which is a online market placed and only acts as intermedially between the seller and the buyer.  The products listed on the said web site and sold by 3^rd parties and not by 1^st O.P and that the LAVA A 11 Dual Sim Mobile Phone purchased by the complainant was delivered to him on 6-11-2012 and when the complainant had complaint on some defects in the mobile or in the nature of manufacturing defects.  Hence the customer care department of O.P immediately provided the information with regard to life authorized service centre as the 1^st O.P was not the seller manufacturer if the mobile.  It is averred that though the complainant was repeatedly told to get the mobile repaired in the service centre he did not get it repaired.  It is averred that when the complainant brought the mobile to the 1^st O.P the later forward the same to the LAVA Service Centre for repair and when it got repaired the 1^st respondent having received the same from the service centre returned back to the complainant.

          It is averred that if any alleged manufacturing defect in the mobile phone purchased by the complainant was detected the manufacturer/or its seller or responsible but not the 1^st O.P.  who is merely acts an intermediatory between the buyer and seller it is averred that the complainant has refused to visit the service centre to get the defects in the mobile rectified and the 1^st O.P.  with the sale intention to help the complainant obtained the mobile phone from the complainant and forward the same LAVA Service Centre for repairs and when the 1^st O.P. received repaired phone from the service centre it was return to the complainant.   Since the 1^st O.P. is not dereliction in duty and as there is no deficiency in service on its part the complaint is liable to be dismissed against 1^st O.P. with costs.  In furtherance of complainants case the complainant filed affidavit evidence and got marked exhibits A1 to A6 on part of 1^st O.P. the evidence affidavit of RW-1 is filed and no documents were marked on its part.

          Perused the material placed on record and had the counsel for respective parties.

Now the point  for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for.

As seen from the submission made by the complainant in his complaint and as well as in the oral and written arguments submitted by the complainants counsel it is manifest that the complainant placed on order to purchase dual Dual Sim mobile phone and on 03.11.2011 he paid a sum of Rs.3,404/- to the 1^st respondent who booked the order placed by the complainant and the complainant having received the mobile phone noticed that the same is not working properly and when the said fact was brought to the notice of O.P’s they have expressed their regrets and requested the complainant to return to the 1^st O.P. and though the phone was return to the 1^st O.P. they did not get the defect rectified and return back to the mobile phone  to the complainant.  Exhibit A1 is copy of the retailed invoice and as seen from its contents it is cleat that LAVA A-11 Dual Sim mobile phone was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.3,404/-. 

In the counter of 1^st respondent it is clearly averred that A-11 LAVA partly same mobile phone purchased by the complainant was delivered to him and 06.11.2012 and when the complainant noticed some defects in the phone which are in the nature of manufacturing  defect the customer care department F.O.P. 1 immediately provided the complainant with information regarding the LAVA authorities service centre and advised the complainant to get the defects rectified at the authorities service centre.  In view of the above said positive assertion made in the counter it is clear that the complainant purchased the above said mobile for Rs.3,404/- and when he noticed defects in it.  He intimated the said fact to the 1^st O.P. to get it repaired.  Though the 1^st O.P. has taken a plea that inspite of repeated requests the complainant refused to visit the service centre to get the phone repair.  Though they have been taken such a plea they did not adduce any cozent evidence to prove the said fact.  The counter which is averred that when the above said phone was given by the complainant to them they have forwarded the same to the LAVA service centre for repairs.  And when it was repaired and was received by the 1^st O.P. the same was return to the complainant.

In view of the above said submission made by 1^st O.P. in their counter it cannot be said that the complainant refused to visit the service centre to get his phone repair.  Exhibit A4 is the extract of mail correspondence and as seen from its contents the complainant made a complaint to the O.P’s stating that the secoundary speaker of the phone is not working and it was completely did upon which a reply was given expressing regrets for the inconvenience cause to the complainants and expressed their intention to get the defects rectified.  Exhibit A-5 is the copy of notice that issued by the complainant to O.P’s 1 and 2 stating that a defective mobile phone was given to the complainant and though the phone was given to then to get the defects rectified they did not get the defective rectified.  During pendency of the case the complainant got the manufacturer of the phone impleaded as O.P.3 and though he notice was sent through E-mail the same was served on the O.P.3 and for the reasons best known  O.P.3 did not come to the forum to contest the matter.  Since the grievance of complainant is that a defective mobile phone was given to him to determine whether the said defect is rectifiable or whether it is a manufacturing defect the same was sent to an analist to examine the sell and to give his report.  They analist report having examined the mobile phone has submitted his  report as per its contents he found that there is speaker problem and the mobile was stampered and volume rocker is not working.   The O.P’s did not dispute the above said findings the analist nor did they place any cogent evidence to prove that the defects noticed in the mobile phone were totally rectified.  Hence in the above said facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that O.P’s 1 and 3 supplied a defective phone to the complainant  having received consideration from him and though the said mobile was given to the O.P’s to get the defects rectified they did not get the defects rectified and as such it can safely to be concluded that O.P’s are dereliction in duty and as there is deficiency in service on their part it must have caused discount for and mental agony to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is partly allowed directing the O.P’s 1 and 3 to refund Rs.3,404/- with costs @ 9% from 03.11.2011 in the date of realization and also to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost which includes the advocate fee of Rs.500/-.  The O.P’s 1 and 3 are directed to the comply the order within one month from today.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 27th day of April, 2015.

MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT

C.C.No.63 / 2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant:-                          For opposite parties:-

PW 1                                                RW1 &  RW2

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Compainant:-

Ex.A-1 Copy of the retail invoice.     

Ex.A-2 Photographs-4 No.

Ex.A-3 Copy of courier POD.

Ex.A-4 Extract of mail correspondence.

Ex.A-5 Office copy of the registered lawyers notice dated

     12.01.2013.

Ex.A-6 Cover returned.

For OP’s –NIL-

                                                                           President