STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.968 of 2015
In/and
First Appeal No.524 of 2015
Date of institution :
Date of decision :

20.05.2015
04.01.2016

Snapdeal, 246, First Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-III, New

Delhi-110020, through its MD/GM.
.Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Nikhil Bansal S/o Vinod Kumar Bansal, R/o Gobindpura Colony,
Street No.4, near Railway Station, Sangrur.
.Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
26.03.2015

of

the

District

Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:Honble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Mr. Upjeet Singh Brar, Member
Present:For the appellant : Shri Chandandeep Singh, Advocate
For the respondent : None.

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :

M.A.No.968 of 2015
The appeal was filed by the appellant/opposite party,
Snapdeal, after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and
was accompanied by the present application for condoning that
delay. It has been contended therein that the period of limitation for

Misc. Application No.968 of 2015

In/and
First Appeal No.524 of 2015

filing the appeal was to expire on 05.05.2015. Its Authorized

Representative was out of station and, as such, his signature could
not be obtained and the same could not be despatched to the lawyer
at Chandigarh. It had tried to file the appeal, but inadvertently it tried
to file the same in the name of Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd.; as that is
the company, which owns and operates the Snapdeal. The registry
made an objection regarding the change in the title of memorandum
of parties. Thereafter, the same was re-typed and fresh signatures
were obtained and was sent to the lawyer at Chandigarh. This delay
in filing the appeal is neither intentional, nor deliberate.
2.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, as no

one appeared on behalf of the respondent at the time of arguments.

We have also carefully gone through the records.
3.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the

appellant reiterated the contentions, as made in the application, and

submitted that the cause, so disclosed in the application, is sufficient
for condoning the delay. He also submitted that Snapdeal is only
the name of website and the same is owned by Jasper Infotech Pvt.
Ltd..
4.

The complaint was filed against Snapdeal, but it failed

to appear before the District Forum, in-spite of its service and was
proceeded against ex parte. The direction was issued to it, vide
order dated 26.03.2015, to provide the complainant the Apple iphone
5S 16 GB (gold) for Rs.68/- only and to pay a consolidated amount
of compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2,000/-.

Misc. Application No.968 of 2015

In/and
First Appeal No.524 of 2015

5.

One of the contentions raised by the counsel for the

appellant before us is that Snapdeal is only the website, which is

owned by the said company and, as such, in the first instance,
attempt was made to file the appeal in the name of that company
and it was on the asking of the registry that the same was filed in the
name of Snapdeal. When he was asked to refer to the documents
in support of that contention, he drew our attention towards the
Website Terms of Use Annexure A-10. It is mentioned in that
document itself that www.snapdeal.com (website) is an internet
based portal, owned and operated by Snapdeal, a company
incorporated under the laws of India, with its Registered Office at
246, Ist Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi. It
becomes very much clear from that, that this Snapdeal is an
incorporated company; which falsifies the contention of the counsel
for the appellant that it is only a website owned by Jasper Infotech
Pvt. Ltd.. When this Snapdeal is an incorporated company, having
independent existence, the appeal was required to be filed by a
person, duly authorized by means of resolution of that company. It is
very much clear from the grounds of appeal and other documents
that the appeal, in fact, has been filed by Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd..
The affidavit, in support of the grounds of appeal, has also been filed
by one Manish Kumar, who is working with that company. It is
pertinent to note that no affidavit was filed in support of the
contentions made in the application. The appeal itself, having been
filed by unauthorized person, is not competent. The application for
condoning the delay is liable to be dismissed on that ground and

Misc. Application No.968 of 2015

In/and
First Appeal No.524 of 2015

keeping in view the above discussed facts and circumstances, this

appeal is dismissed with Rs.10,000/-, as costs; to be deposited in
the Consumer Welfare Fund of this Commission within 30 days.
6.

The sum of Rs.1,034/- deposited at the time of filing of

the appeal, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any,
shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant, by
way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of
the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
7.

The appeal could not be decided within the statutory

period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

PRESIDENT

(VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

MEMBER

(UPJEET SINGH BRAR)

MEMBER
January 04, 2016.
(Gurmeet S)