Online shopping portal Snadeal was ordered to provide Apple iphone 5S (Gold) for Rs.68/- and also pay litigation cost of Rs.2000/- in a consumer case filed by a complainant in DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complainant Shri Nikhil Bansal, placed an order of Apple iphone 5S (Gold) with the OP on 31.7.2014 vide order number 2530553278 under the offer of the OP. It is further averred that the cost of the mobile set in question was Rs.46,719/- and there was a discount of Rs.46,651/- on the same, as such, the complainant was to pay an amount of Rs.68/- only. It is further averred that it was assured by the OP that the order will be despatched on or before 1.8.2014 and was to be delivered within 4-5 days. It is further averred that the complainant received a mail dated 1.8.2014 from the OP vide which the order of the complainant was cancelled. When a call was made by the complainant to the representative of the OP, it was told that due to technical problem, the price of the product was wrongly shown and the same cannot be delivered at that price. Thereafter the complainant sent the email to the OP whereby requesting it to deliver the set as per the order placed upon the OP. It is further averred that despite repeatedly approaching the OP by the complainant, nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to provide the mobile phone in question i.e. Apple iphone 5S 16 GB (Gold) to the complainant at Rs.68/- as per the order placed by the complainant and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
After considering the evidences produced by the Complainant, the court found it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Snapdeal and the court directed the OP to provide to the complainant the apple iphone 5S 16 GB (gold) to the complainant at Rs.68/- only and further to pay a consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2000/- only.
The OP was not present (though they made representation at a later stage) and the case was heard and decided exparte.