1. Petitioner/complainant being aggrieved of the order of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, the State Commission) dated 18.4.2016 in first appeal No.01/2016 has preferred this revision petition.

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner raised consumer dispute before Additional District Forum, Rajkot alleging that on 26.2.2015 the complainant placed an order for an air conditioner make Voltas 1.5 ton 5 Star 185 Cya split on the app of the respondent Snapdeal.com Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. It is the case of the complainant that he was promised that the AC would be delivered to him in one business day at the cost of Rs.32,097/- after adjusting the discount of Rs.3,000/- for placing the order by downloading the app on the mobile phone. The opposite party despite of having promised the delivery of the AC failed to deliver the AC within three business days. Delay was brought to the notice of the opposite party but in vain. Subsequently, on 3.3.2015, the representative of the opposite party informed the complainant through e-mail that the product was to be delivered by M/s Smart Store and the dealer was not in a position to deliver the same. Therefore, they will check the other choices and deliver the product. Thereafter, the representative of the opposite party informed the complainant that the product would be delivered shortly. It was also informed that although the price of the product has increased, the complainant would be charged the agreed price of Rs.32,097/- inclusive of the discount. Ultimately, the AC was delivered through M/s Gati Courier on 9.3.2015 at 7.30 p.m. and the complainant on payment of the consideration amount of Rs.32,097/- received the delivery of the AC. It is also the case of the complainant that the manufacturing date of the outside and inside units of the AC delivered to him were different. Otherwise, no complaint regarding the quality of the AC was made in the complaint. -1-

3. Claiming the late delivery to the deficiency in service, the complainant raised a consumer dispute in the concerned District Forum.

4. The opposite party on receipt of the notice filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the complaint. It was pleaded that opposite party No. 1 M/s Snapdeal.com works only as a mediator between the consumer and the seller/dealer and that opposite party No. 1 itself do not sell any product directly or indirectly and it is not bound by any warranty or the conditions of sale. The opposite party No. 1 also took a preliminary objection that the complaint was bad because the selling company being necessary party was not impleaded in the array of the parties.

5. Opposite party No. 2 courier, who supplied the AC to the complainant did not appear pursuant to the notice and was proceeded ex parte.

6. Learned District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence was of the view that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Respondent No. 1/opposite party and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved of the order of District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the State commission, Gujarat and the State Commission vide impugned order concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. This has led to filing of the revision petition.

7. Before adverting to the pleas in the revision petition, it is pertinent to say a word about the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner sent the revision petition by post and thereafter sent a communication dated 29.4.2016 with a prayer to appoint an Amicus to assist the Bench on his behalf. In the said application, the petitioner has not mentioned even a single word about his financial status. Despite that the Bench showed indulged and appointed Ms. Kirti Sethi, Advocate as Amicus to assist the Bench on behalf of the petitioner/complainant. Ms. Kirti Sethi on hearing dated 8.7.2016 made a request for being discharged of her duty as Amicus Curiae on the plea that the petitioner has been harassing her and doubted her integrity and she also stated at the bar that the petitioner has threatened the father of the Amicus Curiae. Not only this, the petitioner after filing of the revision petition, has been sending one letter after the other to the Presiding Member of the Bench, as also the Honble President and has been harassing the staff by persistent telephonic calls. The Bench therefore taking note of the submissions made by the Amicus Curiae and the conduct of the petitioner discharged Ms. Kirth Sethi, Advocate as Amicus and observed that the petitioner does not deserve any legal aid. The matter was thereafter posted for arguments on 25.10.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner after having known about the order sent an application for pre-ponement of the date of hearing. He even made a telephonic call to the Presiding Member and he was advised not to directly communicate with the Members of the Bench. The petitioner was also advised that it was upto him whether to appear in person and argue the matter or if he is not in a position to appear in person, he should sent his written request with the written arguments so that the arguments may be considered and the revision petition may be disposed of in absentia. Despite of the advice given, the petitioner did not mend his ways and he kept on sending communications to the Commission but written arguments were not sent. He has not even appeared today either in person or through counsel.

8. In view of the absence of the petitioner we could have dismissed the revision petition in default but we have taken up ourselves to look into the record and decide the revision petition.

9. From the record, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner placed order for purchase of the AC on 26.2.2015, which was initially to be supplied by the vendor M/s Smart Store but as M/s Smart Store was not in a position to supply the AC, the AC was got supplied through other vendor and the delivery was effected on 9.3.2015. It was also not in dispute that as per the terms and conditions, the payment was to be made at the time of delivery. If the complainant was aggrieved of around 12 days delay in delivery, he could easily have refused to take the delivery, but the petitioner opted to take delivery by making the payment of the agreed price. It is not the case of the petitioner that the AC was defective. Therefore, we do not find any fault with the concurrent findings of the Fora below, which are well reasoned. No jurisdictional error is pointed out in the revision petition. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed. ......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER