SNAPDEAL Vs NIKHIL BANSAL
Judgement Snapshot
Case Number
697 of 2016
Hon'ble Bench
V.K. Jain, Anup K Thakur
Advocates
Padma Priya, Reepak Kansal
Judgement Text
Translate:
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 4.1.2016 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 26.3.2015 was dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent stated that he would have no difficulty if this Commission itself takes up and decides the complaint filed by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner also has no objection to our adopting the aforesaid course of action. We have, therefore, heard the learned counsel for the parties on the complaint itself.
3. The case of the complainant on merits is that the opposite party, namely, Snapdeal is running the business of online shopping (E-Commerce market place), under the name of Snapdeal.Com. The complainant claims to have placed an order with the petitioner for purchase of an Apple iphone 5S on 31.7.2014, pursuant to an offer which stipulated the price of the mobile phone at Rs.46,719/- with a discount of Rs.46,651/-, meaning thereby that an Apple iphone 5S 16GB was sold to the complainant for a net price of only at Rs.68/-.
4. A perusal of the complaint would show that Snapdeal was the sole opposite party in the complaint and was sued through its M.D./G.M. The complaint did not disclose as to whether the Snapdeal was a proprietorship, partnership, company or any other legal entity. The case of the petitioner is that in fact Snapdeal is only a brand name owned by a company, namely, Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and Snapdeal by itself is not a legal entity.
5. In our opinion, if Snapdeal by itself is a legal entity, the complaint should have disclosed as to whether it was a proprietorship, partnership company, society or other legal entity. In case it is a proprietorship, the complainant ought to have disclosed its name of its proprietor. In case it is a company it can be only a private limited or a limited company in which case its name would be Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd./Snapdeal Ltd. Therefore, we have absolutely no hesitation in holding that the complaint as framed before the District Forum was clearly not maintainable in law. The District Forum instead of asking the complainant/respondent to disclose the legal status of the Snapdeal, chose to decide the complaint on merits. As far as the State Commission is concerned, the appeal was not considered on merits and was dismissed holding that it was barred by limitation.
6. Ordinarily, instead of deciding the complaint on merits, we would have remitted the matter back to the State Commission or the District Forum to decide the complaint, but, since the parties have agreed that we may decide the complaint at our level, we have proceeded to adopt the aforesaid course of action. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of the respondent/complainant filing an appropriate complaint against a legal entity. If a fresh complaint is filed, the complainant will also be entitled to seek condonation of delay if any, in filing the said complaint on account of previous complaint filed by him.
