Case No. 270/2010. Case: Vinay Narain Vs LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberCase No. 270/2010
Party NameVinay Narain Vs LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
JudgesA.S. Yadav, President and Ehtesham-Ul-Haq, Member
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order I Rule 10(2); Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 14
Judgement DateMay 21, 2015
CourtDelhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

  1. This order shall dispose of an application moved under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC by OP-3 for discharge being not a necessary party.

  2. We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the record. Compliant filed the present complaint u/s. 12 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act regarding deficiency in service on the part of OPs including the applicant i.e. Rediff.Com India Ltd. (OP-3).

  3. The case of the complainant is that on the basis of certain promotions and advertisement etc. hosted by the website of OP-3, had made an internet purchase of a LG DVD Recorder VCR Combo 1080p Model RC897T for a sum of Rs. 24990/- as per Order Approval dated 27.7.2009. However that product happened to be defective. The matter was reported to the OPs. The product was replaced with a new product of same quality. Even the same was found to be defective however that defective product was not replaced by the OPs. Complainant has filed this complaint for refund of amount of the product and compensation.

  4. The complaint is contested by all the OPs including OP-3. OP-3 during the pendency of the proceedings moved this application for dropping of proceedings against OP-3 on the ground that it is neither a necessary nor a proper party.

  5. The application has been opposed by the complainant stating therein that OP-3 is a necessary and proper party as it is the main facilitator and service provider between OP-1 and the complaint and making profit from the transaction and Ops are jointly responsible for deficiency in service. It is further averred that the complainant relying on the fact that the website of OP-3 declared that the machine was covered with a warranty of one year, purchased the produced from OP-1. It is stated that OP-3 is main service provider and facilitator between complainant and OP-1.

  6. It is contended by Ld. Counsel of OP-3 that OP-3 is neither a seller nor a manufacturer as defined under Consumer Protection Act. It is contended that the complainant had agreed, understood and acknowledged the terms and conditions laid down by OP-3 on its website which clearly states that OP-3 will not be held responsible for any defect/dispute between the transacting parties and OP-3. It is contended that OP-3 is an online shopping platform which acts as a venue for sellers to create their own online shopping stores thereby facilitating buyers to shop for the products and services displayed thereon alongwith the prices and terms & conditions. It is also contended...

To continue reading

Request your trial