DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA
RBT/Consumer Complaint No. 81 of 02.02.2018
Date of Decision: 19.12.2022
Rajan son of Sh. Roshan Lal, resident of House No.2653, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana
……Complainant
Versus
- Snapdeal, having its head office Jasper Infotech Private Limited, 246, Ist Floor, Phase III, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, through its Director/Managing Director.
- M/s Ganpati Communications, Basement S.S. Tower, Civil Line Road, Gurdaspur, 143521, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager/Authorized Representative.
….Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act
QUORUM:-
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY:-
Sh. Karan Verma, Adv. For complainant
Sh. J.D. Singh Ahuja, Adv. For OP1
Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Adv. For OP2.
ORDER:-
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
- The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint received by way of transfer from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the opposite parties on the ground that the complainant is a consumer as defined in the consumer protection Act as the complainant had purchased an Apple I phone 5s 32 GB through opposite party No.1, which was duly delivered by the OP2 being authorized seller of the opposite party no. 1. The complainant had placed an order with the OP1 for the purchase of Apple I Phone 5s (32 GB) vide order no. 9850333789 on dated 06.11.2015, which was duly delivered by the opposite party no. 2 being authorized seller of the opposite party no. 1 on 12.11.2015 and the payment of the said phone of Rs. 32,900/- was paid by the complainant in cash. When the complainant opened the box of the said I phone, it revealed that the said mobile set delivered by the OP was a fake one. It further revealed that the said phone was a refurbished product which means a product that is generally exchanged by customers if any problem arises in the original hand set/ mobile phone. The said I phone was made in abroad and had no overseas guarantee or any guarantee period of India. Thereafter the complainant immediately contacted the opposite party and apprised all the above said facts to the OP1, upon which the opposite party sent the pickup agent i.e. Nuvo Logistics Pvt. Ltd. who took the said handset of the complainant vide AWB no. SND1775668 on 18.11.2015 and issued a receipt in this regard, where the specific reason for return is mentioned as Fake Product Delivered. At that time, the OP assured the complainant that they will return the amount of the said phone within 3 working weeks, but after the passing of said stipulated period, the opposite party did not return the amount of the complainant, rather lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Since sufficient time has been elapsed, but the opposite parties did not refund the said amount of the complainant. In this way, the opposite parties have filed to provide the service to the complainant as per assurance given by them at the time of purchasing the said mobile set. This is the most glaring example of gross negligence, one cannot expect such a blunder form such a high branded reputed company, which has good name and has earned big fame all over the country. On the other hand the opposite parties are exploiting the customers who have good faith in company and have spent huge bucks on purchasing the products, which has been put to mud by their conduct. Hence the complainant has suffered immense harassment and tension at the hands of the opposite parties, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has sought the following reliefs against the Ops:-
1. To pay Rs.32,900/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment ‘
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Any other additional or alternative relief to which the complainant is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, the learned counsel for the OP1 has filed written reply, taking preliminary objections; that the OP1 operates its online marketplace platform under the brand name/trade mark Snapdeal through the website i.e. 3. Upon notice, the learned counsel for the OP3 has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present petition is not maintainable in the present form as false, frivolous and vexatious; that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition; that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. The petitioner has suppressed the material facts form this hon’ble court as the true facts are the different from the version of the petitioner. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed; that mobile purchased by the complaint on 6.11.2015 under billing of opposite party no. 2 , whereas the present complaint cc/18/81 was filed on 2.2.2018 which is clearly time barred as per section 24-A consumer protection Act has complete to be dismissed; that the present complaint is also barred by limitation as warranty of the mobile as given by the manufacturer for one year form the date of sale i.e. 6.11.2015, whereas the present complaint is filed as 2.2.2018. copy of warranty enclosed herewith Ex.R-1.; that opposite party no. 2 is not necessary and proper party. Because the complainant has returned the hand set on 18.11.2015 through NovalogisticPvt. Ltd. to Opposite party no.1. opposite party no. 2 has no concerned with the reverse pick up sheet. They are link with snapdeal, opposite party no. 1; that the hon’ble forum has no territorial jurisdiction against the opposite party no. 2 as the disputed mobile /handset bearing invoice dated 6.11.2015 to the opposite party no. 1 at Gurdaspur, as such complaint against opposite party no. 2 at Ludhiana is not maintainable, so complaint opposite party no. 2 is dismissed; that the present complaint is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties i.e. manufacture of the mobile set and the distributor was GTC Telecom, Gurdaspur Road, Pathankot from whom the respondent no. 2 purchased the mobile vide invoice dated 30.9.2015 which is Ex.R-2; that the allegation of cheating has been revealed in para no. 7 of the complaint, as such only civil court can decided the matter being dispute facts, as such consumer complaint arise able. On merits, it is denied that to the utter surprise of the complainant, when he opened the box of the said I phone, it revealed that the said mobile set delivered by the opposite party was a fake one. It is denied that the said phone was a refurbished product which means a product that is generally exchanged by customers if any problem arises in the original hand set/mobile phone. In fact set is original send by the opposite party no.2 to end complainant. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.
4. The learned counsel for the parties have closed their respective evidence after tendering affidavit and certain documents in their support.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record file, carefully.
6. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the OP1 stated that the OP1 was refund the amount of the mobile in question. So, the price of the mobile in question was already refunded to the complainant by the OP1 then no purpose will be served to proceed with the present complaint. Therefore, we dispose of the present complaint with the liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint if his grievance will not be redressed. Free certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties, as per rules. The file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.
Announced:
19.12.2022. (RANJIT SINGH)
PRESIDENT
(RANVIR KAUR)
MEMBER
