Date of filing: 16.04.2018 Date of disposal: 21 .11 .2019
Complainant: Sri Debjit @Dipak Mandal at Upor Nadiha, PO: Dulmi Nadiha, District: Purulia, PIN – 723 102, West Bengal.
- V E R S U S -
Opposite Party: 1. Jasper Infotect Pvt. Ltd. (snapdeal.com),
362-363 ASF Centre, Udyog Vihar, Phase4, Sec-18, Gurgaon, Gurugram, Haryana – 122 016.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Ms. Nivedita Ghosh.
Appeared for the Complainant: In person.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: None (ex parte).
J U D G E M E N T
This is an application under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the Complainant Sri Debjit, alias Dipak Mondal of Upor Nadiha, P.O.- Dulmi Nadiha within District- Purulia against the O.P. namely, Jasper Infotect Pvt. Ltd.(snap deal.com) 362-363 ASF Centre, Udyog Bihar, Phase 4. Sec 18 Gurgaon, Gurugram, Haryana for an award of refund the money amounting to Rs. 10,484=00 which he had paid for a mobile set to the O.P. along with interest @ 10% from 25.07.2015 and further Rs. 10,000=00 as compensation for causing loss, harassment and mental agony and also Rs. 5,000=00 as litigation cost.
The case of the complaint is that on 17.07.2015 he had purchased a GIONEE Marathon M3, 4GB, order ID 7328614952 from Snapdeal Company worth Rs.10, 484=00 and he received the said mobile set by courier service Valex at Asansol on 25.07.2015 and after receiving the said mobile set he found that it is a damaged product with hanging problems.
Then he registered the return request and the O.P. approved the same on 25.07.2015 at 1.30 p.m., i.e., on the same day when he received the product and finally returned request closed on 04.02.2016 at 7.21 p.m., and since he received no call for pick up the mobile hand set or any sms from the O.P., the Complainant also alleged that he could not able to contact with the O.P. for pick up the mobile set in spite of several attempts. Thereafter, on 30.03.2019 the Complainant is able to log in with the assistance of O.P. for pick the mobile set but ultimately O.P. denied to pick up the same from the custody of the Complainant, rather compelled him to self-return of the mobile set which is nothing but gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. but for not taking step to pick up the mobile set from the custody of the complainant and for that the complainant is bound to file the present application where O.P. is liable to refund the money which he had paid for the mobile set along with compensation and litigation cost.
The cause of action arose on and from 25.07.2015 when he received the mobile set from the Op through courier service and thereafter on 30.03.2019 when Op requested him for self-return the mobile set before them.
The Complainant has also taken proper step against the O.P. after filing the present application and it appears from the track report that O.P. received the same on 13.05.2019 but take no steps to contest the present application by filing written version accordingly the case fixed for ex parte.
The Complainant prayed before the Court to consider his claim application as his evidence and also produce Xerox copies of some documents to prove that being bonafide consumer he is not get any justice from the OP.
Now points for consideration:-
- Whether the Complainant is a bonafide consumer under the O.P.?
- Whether the Complainant entitled to get any relief as against the O.P. as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:-
Regarding Issue No.1:
This is the main issue for consideration the present application and according to C.P. Act the complainant is duty bound to prove that he is a bonafide consumer under the O.P. against whom he prayed for relief.
In the instant case, it appears that to prove the same the complainant is able to produce the Xerox copy of retail invoice which shows that invoice date on 18.07.2015 against order dated 17.07.2015 and the name of the buyer is Debjit Mondal and the retail invoice issued from Asansol Railway 1 No. Platform, near IO Office, Dist: Burdwan, Asansol Railway Station, CITY Burdwan/State West Bengal (19), Pin -713 301.
It further appears from the said invoice i.e. the description of the items- GIONEE Marathon M3, DGB Black, Item Code DA4931288, Order No. 7328614952, Suborder No.9461129554, IMEI No. 366924020482567 and the price was inclusive of taxes Rs.11, 300=00
.
So it is clear from the invoice that Debjit Mondal purchased and received the mobile set from Snapdeal through courier service.
It also appears from the complaint petition under Section 12 of the C.P. Act that the name of the complainant is Sri Debjit @ Dipak Mondal at Upor Nadiha, Dulmi Nadiha within District: Purulia, whereas the complainant signed at the verification of the same petition as Dipak Mondal and not as Debjit @Dipak Mondal and he further mentioned and signed his name at the time of affidavit before the notary public, Burdwan as Dipak Mondal, S/o. Sri Ashim Mondal in presence of his Ld. Advocate Mr. Buddhadev Roy.
It further appears from the documents issued by Snapdeal dated 18.09.2018, 26.03.2019 in favour of the complainant where the name of the addressee is Debjit /Debojit but not as Debjit @ Dipak Mondal.
The complainant Dipak Mondal again signed the affidavit before the Forum when he submits that his complaint petition should be treated as his evidence on affidavit in presence of his Ld. Advocate Dilip Kumar Dutta who also identified him as Dipak Mondal on 21St day of August, 2019.
So on considering the claim application as well as all the documents filed by the complainant clearly mentioned that the name of the mobile purchaser is Debjit Mondal and the name of the complainant Dipak Mondal but not as Debjit @Dipak Mondal, except the first page of the petition itself under Section 12 of the C.P. Act.
Accordingly, the present Forum has no hesitation to declare that Dipak Mondal, Complainant of the present application is not a consumer under Snapdeal.com for which he had filed the application for relief. The present Forum at the same time hold after considering the attitude of the complainant that he is not at all a consumer and at least he is unable to prove the same, rather it is justified to say that he is not willing to prove the same by producing original documents.
Accordingly this issue is disposed off against the complainant.
Regarding issue No. 2:
The issue is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for and at the time of considering this point it appears from the record that one Debjit & Dipak Mondal at Upor Nadiha lodged an application under Section 12 of the C. P. Act against the OP, i.e., Jasper Infotect Ltd. (snapdeal.com) on the allegation that he purchased one GIONEE Marathon M3 (8GB) Black, order ID 7328614952) from snapdeal.com for Rs. 10,484=00 the said mobile set delivered before him through courier service on 25.7.2015 and after receiving the said set he found that the phone is a damage product and had hanging problem and then & there he informed the same with a request for pick up and his request was approved on that date though ultimately return request closed on 04.06.2016.
It further appears that ultimately the mobile set was/is in the custody of the complainant and the OP failed to pick up the same from his possession for repairing work since 15.07.2015 and for that the present petition filed, praying for refund the total purchase amount of Rs. 10,484=00 along with interest at the rate of 10% along with compensation and litigation cost.
But now it appears that we have already discussed that the complainant has failed to prove that he is a bonafide consumer under the OP.
We found at the time of considering the documents i.e., retail invoice, the buyer of the mobile set, GIONEE Marathon M3, 8GB Black order No. 7328614952 is Debjit Mondal not as Debjit @Dipak Mondal. Secondly, it appears from the said invoice that the price of said mobile set is Rs. 11,300=00 whereas the purchase amount of the mobile set is Rs. 10,484=00 and further it appears only the 1st page of the complaint petition, the complainant mentioned as Debjit @Dipak Mondal. In respect of all other reliable papers as produced by the complainant to show that the name of the complainant is Dipak Mondal and further appears that complainant is not able to produce any document to show that Debjit @Dipak Mondal is same and identical person.
Under such circumstances as he complainant himself has totally failed to prove that he is a consumer for the said mobile set under the OP as per his claim, so, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the present Forum Court without any hesitation declared that the claim application is liable for rejection. Accordingly this issue disposed of against the complainant.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the present Consumer Complaint being No. 72/2019 under Section 12 of the C. P. Act be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the OP and complainant is not entitled to get any amount as award from the OP as per his claim.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Nivedita Ghosh) DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
(Nivedita Ghosh)
Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
