Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Mohali Consumer Forum directed an e-commerce website, a third-party seller and a courier firm to pay Rs 1 lakh to a 36-year-old civil engineer from Mohali, who received five detergent cakes, while he had placed an order for an Apple iPhone 7 plus. The complainant, Parveen Kumar Sharma, stated that he purchased an Apple iPhone 7 plus through Snapdeal and placed the order for delivery on March 4, 2017. He was notified by Snapdeal that the iPhone would be delivered before March 12.
The packet, dispatched through Snapdeal, along with its seller, Pious Fashion, was sent through Blue Dart courier firm on March 6, 2017, at Sharma’s address. In his complaint, Sharma further stated he gave the address of a guest accommodation provided to him by his company and the package was received by its caretaker, Netra, as he was not there at the time of delivery. When Sharma opened the package, he found five detergent cakes of Rim bar instead of the iPhone.
Sharma further alleged that he sent two emails to Snapdeal, however, no action was taken. His account with Snapdeal was also deleted.
Thus, Sharma filed a formal complaint at the Mohali Consumer Forum on June 19, 2017.
Snapdeal, in its reply at the forum, submitted that the website is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sales transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end consumers. Once a user accepts offer of sale of products made by the third party seller on the website, the seller is intimated electronically and is required to ensure that the products are made available and delivered in accordance to the delivery terms as set out by the seller as displayed on the website, they said.
”As per confirmation received from seller and logistic service provider, the iPhone was delivered intact to the complainant at the given address. The complainant has cooked up a story about receiving soap bars instead of the phone. It is claimed that ordered product was duly delivered to the complainant and that is why replacement request raised by the complainant was denied at seller’s end,” the e-commerce firm said in its reply.
Meanwhile, Pious Fashion and Blue Dart Courier, did not submit any reply in the matter and were proceeded ex-parte. The forum, on Monday, after hearing the arguments, held that Snapdeal’s plea states that it had no role in placement of order and dispatch of ordered product, and yet the firm disclosed that the product ordered by the complainant was shipped through their courier services.
“This means that OP Number 1 (Snapdeal), by taking advantage of cited provisions of Information Technology Act and clauses of Terms of Use, wants to wriggle out from liability,” read the forum order.
The judgment further read, “…IMEI number of mobile was neither mentioned on the packet nor on the bill. It was not even mentioned in Ex.C-10 and as such it is obvious that due efforts were not made by OPs to find the movement of mobile that was sold with a particular IMEI number to the complainant…”
Thus, the forum directed Snapdeal, Pious Fashion and Blue Dart Courier, to refund Rs 81,799, along with an interest at 8 percent per annum from March 4, 2017, till payment, to the complainant. The firms have also been directed to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 as cost of litigation to Sharma.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
