Haryana

StateCommission

A/875/2019

CHANDRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

JASPER INFOTECH PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

05 Jul 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                Date of Institution:03.10.2019

                                                          Date of final hearing: 05.07.2024

                                                     Date of Pronouncement: 05.07.2024

 

First Appeal No.875 of 2019

 

Chandra, # 5-9-95, Beside Gurudwar, Road No:5,Sikhwada, Hanamkonda, Warangal-506001, Mob: 7715064669

          .....Appellant

•  

Jasper Infotech Private Limited (www.snapdeal.com) represented through its CEO and Director 6^th Floor, Cyberscape, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector-59, Gurugram, Haryana 122102.

..... Respondent

CORAM:             Mr.S.C.Kaushik, Member

 

Argued by:-       None for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

 

                                                ORDER

S.C.KAUSHIK, MEMBER:-

          Delay of 103 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.    

2.      Challenge in this Appeal No.875 of 2019 of appellant/complainant has been invited to set asidethe impugned order dated 22.05.2019passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon(In short “District Consumer Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.221of 2019, vide which complainant’s complaint has been dismissed.

3.      Factual matrix:  On 17.05.2018 at 7:32 PM complainant purchased “Jagdamba 10 GM Gold Coin” Qty: 2 from opposite party by paying Rs.69,204/- to opposite party (OP) through net banking. The specifications of the product were 24Kt 999 (puri) weight 10 grams, the complainant paid the money for 24kt 999 purity 10 gm gold coin. Opposite party dispatched the order through its courier.  On 27.05.2018, opposite party delivered order.  On opening the shipment, complainant found that gold coins supplied are different from the coins description shown on website i.e. opposite party had sent wrong products to complainant. The received coins did not have any information of purity and weight. The complainant  registered a return request with opposite party on 27.05.2018 requesting OP to take the coins back and replace them with coins as per website description/return the money paid.  The OP kept delaying return request for almost 10 days without giving any response.  OP sent purity certificate for the coins via email dated 6.6.2018, vide which it is mentioned as 24kt gold only (exact purity is not mentioned).  He asked OP to take the coins back without any delay.  On 09.06.2018 at 9.46 am opposite party sent an email asking complainant to share the images of the coins received.  On 09.06.2018 at 01.43 pm complainant sent the requested images by replying to same email.   After social media escalation and after  several emails and calls OP finally agreed to take the coins back.  On July 2,2018 at 01.39 p.m. OP sent an email sating that the items will be picked by its partner (seller) and all the missing missing information like purity, weight will be engraved on the coins along with an updated invoice showing 999 purity as well as warranty card will be sent along with coins in 7-10 business days.    On 03.07.2018, the representative of the OP visited the complainant location to pick the coins. The coins were not delivered in the promised timeline of 7-10 business days.  He wrote several emails OP to return the coins as promised but all his emails are ignored without any response.    OP did not replace the coins as per description/ returned complainant money. He has alleged deficiency in service of OPs.

4.      Perusal of the file shows that the learned District Commission-Gurugram has already dismissed the three complaints on the same cause of action on 12.03.2019, 22.05.2019 and 06.01.2020, but complainant only filed appeal against the order dated 22.05.2019.Record also shows that complainant filed three complaints of same title, which have already been dismissed by the District Commission-Gurugram on the same cause of action.  Perused all the files.  No ground is made out.  Hence, the learned District Commission, Gurugram, has rightly dismissed all the complaints on the same cause of action, which was not maintainable. 

5.      In wake of above analysis and critical discussion; this Commission has arrived at an inescapable conclusion that there is no illegality or any fallacy committed by learned District Consumer Commission-Gurugram. Impugned order dated 22.05.2019 is not perverse, instead it is the outcome of meticulous appreciation of all relevant facets of this case, which is hereby affirmed, maintained and upheld. Present appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 

6.  

7.      A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

8.      File be consigned to record room.

 

 

Date of pronouncement: 5th July, 2024                S.C.Kaushik                                                                                             Member

Addl. Bench-II