SNAPDEAL THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. MANISH KUMAR, 246 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE PHASE III, NEW DELHI Vs. NIKHIL BANSAL S/O SH. VINOD KUMAR BANSAL R/O GOBINDPURA COLONY, STREET NO.4, NEAR RAILWAY STATION SANGRUR PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(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.46,719.00 with a discount of Rs.46,651.00, meaning thereby that an Apple iphone 5S 16GB was sold to the complainant for a net price of only at Rs.68.00.