Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/62/2022

Susanket Ranjan Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Flipkart Internet Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Prateek Mahapatra & Associates

01 May 2023

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 62/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

Susanket Ranjan Panda

At- Bajrang Bihar, Po/Ps- Dhanupali,

Dist- Sambalpur-768005, Odisha.                                 ...………..Complainant

Versus

1. Flipkart Internet Private Limited

Ozone Manay Tech Park, 56/18 and 55/09,

Seventh Floor Garvebhavipalya,

Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560068,

Karnataka, India.

2. Ncubate India Services Private Limited

WZ-106/101, Rajouri Garden Extension,

New Delhi, West Delhi, Delhi-110027

3. Livuard Energy Technologies Private Limited

Plot No. 221, Phase-1, Udyog Vihar,

Gurgaon-122016 Harayana, India.                           …………...Opp.Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Sri. P.Mahapatra, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.No.1                :-       Sri. A,K,Sahoo, Advocate & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.2                           :-       Sri. Sairam Patra, Authorised representative

 

Date of Filing:29.08.2022,  Date of Hearing :06.03.2023  Date of Judgement : 01.05.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant ordered  one Livguard LG 1100PV+PT 155STJ Tubular Inverter Battery from Flipkart.com on 27^th March May 2022, by payment of Rs. 16,525/-. The delivery date was given by the company on 5^th June, 2022 Sunday but the product not delivered. There was frequent power cut in his locality. So, he had ordered the product from Flipkart.com for the purpose of his birthday. The Complainant birthday falls on 6^th June. He had arranged a birthday party of 150 people. The delivery date from flipkart.com was given on 5^th June 2022. So, he was assured that the product will be delivered before his birthday. But, the product was not delivered. On the same day electricity was cut off and there was no inverter in his home. So, the invited persons were harassed and the family members of the Complainant were humilated before them. The inverter was cost of Rs. 16,525/- and the Complainant ordered on EMI basis. The Complainant is paying the EMI since last two months but the inverter has not been delivered.
2. The Written Version of the O.P No. 1 is that the electronic platform of OP No. 1 merely acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transaction between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. The sole responsibility to ensure the delivery of the ordered product lies upon the seller of the product and not the OP No. 1. When the Complainant raised his grievance with the OP No. 1, the same was intimated to the seller. As per information received from the seller of the product due to some unforeseen operational circumstances and technical issues, the seller was unable to deliver the product. Further, the seller requested the Complainant to cancel the previous order and place a fresh order and the refund would be processed once the order was cancelled but the Complainant blatantly denied placing a fresh order. Hence, grievance of the Complainant was unattended or unresolved. The OP No. 1 has tried its best to solve the grievance of the Complainant in its capacity of an intermediary. The OP No. 1 is not liable to provide any compensation or any other relief to the Complainant as the OP No. 1 never sold the product or came into the possession of the product sold by the seller to the Complainant. The dispute, if any is only between the Complainant and the seller. The Complainant was provided all possible assistance by giving due intimation of information received from the seller. Hence, in view of the above, there is no cause of action against the O.P. No.1.

The Written Version of the OP No. 2 & 3 is that the OP No. 2 is an enterprise in India, with a registered office in Delhi & Corporate office in Gurugram. It operates in the Transportation and Warehousing industry. It is a leading Warehouse and logistics Company and has Pan India Warehousing & Distribution network. The OP No. 3 is an enterprise in India, with a registered office in Delhi & Corporate office in Gurugram. It is the brand owner of “LIVGUARD” batteries and Inverters. The Complainant in his complaint himself has stated/admitted that he had placed an order for one Livguard LG 1100PV+PT 155STJ Tubular Inverter Battery on Flipkart.com vide Order ID OD22505228532145000 on 27^th May 2022 by payment of Rs. 16,525/- to the OP No. 1. It is clear from this that neither the order was placed nor the payment of Rs. 16,525/- was directly made to the OP No. 2 & 3 by the Complainant. On 28^th May 2022 seeing the above-referred order of the Complainant reflected in his account on the portal of Flipkart.com, the OP No. 2 on 28^th May 2022 itself booked the ordered consignment of Livguard LG 1100PV+PT 155STJ Tubular Inverter Battery from its Bhubaneswar Warehouse through its Logistic Partener, namely Five Star Logistic vide LR No. 0214581 to be delivered to the place of the Complainant, namely Guddy, Fatak Santinagar, Atha Colony, Sambalpur. Logistic Partner of the OP No. 2, namely Five Star Logistic attempted delivery of the above-referred ordered product to the above-referred place of the Complainant Thrice i.e. on 01.06.2022, on 03.06.2022 and on 04.06.2022 i.e. one day prior to the committed expected date of delivery i.e. 05.06.2022 but the Complainant refused to accept/receive the said consignment, which is evident from the LR No. 0214581 enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE-A. Hence, the allegation of the Complainant that invited persons on his birthday were harassed and his family members were also humiliated before them due to non-delivery of the ordered consignment is wrong and false. If it all happened, it happened only due to non-acceptance/non-receipt of the consignment by the Complainant himself on 01.06.2022, 03.06.2022 and 04.06.2022 when the logistic partner of OP No. 2 namely Five Star Logistic attempted delivery of the ordered consignment to the place of the consignment. After refusing to accept the consignment, the Complainant started sending emails to Flipkart.com stating non-delivery of the ordered consignment and in reply to this, as usual, getting the automated replies from the Flipkart.com. It is evident from this that the Complainant had malafide intentions of extorting the OPs blaming deficiency in services or any neglignce on the part of OPs by taking undue advantage of the CP Act, which is evident from this that on 21.07.2022 the Complainant registered the complaint on national consumer helpline stating non-delivery of the ordered consignment by the OP No. 1, namely Flipkart.com, to whom he placed order. National Consumer Helpline forwarded the said complaint to the OP No. 1, i.e. Flipkart.com for its reply, to which the Flipkart.com replied on 21.07.2022 itself and requested the Complainant to cancel the current order from Flipkart App and place a fresh order for the same product and once the order is cancelled, the Complainant will get the notification about the refund. It is very surprising that with the malafide intention the Complainant, instead of cancelling the order as advised by the OP No.1, the Complainant on 23.08.2022 Firstly registered the present complaint with this Hon’ble Commission with malafide intention so as to take the undue advantage of the CP Act and then started calling Flipkart for the refund. On this, Flipkart left with no other option but to cancel the order on 25.08.2022 and released the refund on 07.09.2022 to the Complainant. There is no deficiency in services or any negligence on the part of the OP No. 2 & 3 and thus the OP No. 2 & 3 are not at all liable in any manner to pay any amount of compensation and refund of Rs. 16,525/- since the Complainant had neither placed order nor made payment to them and furthermore, had already got this refund from the OP No. 1, Flipkart.com on 07.09.2022, to whom he placed order and made the payment of the ordered product.   

3. From the above it is found that there is a contradiction between the statements of the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 2 & 3.  the OP No. 1 in its version mentioned that “due to some unforeseen operational circumstances and technical issues, the seller was unable to deliver the product. Further, the seller requested the Complainant to cancel the previous order and place a fresh order and the refund would be processed once the order was cancelled but the Complainant blatantly denied placing a fresh order. Hence, no grievance of the Complainant is unattended or unresolved”. In the other hand in its version the OP No. 2 & 3 mentioned that “On 28^th May 2022 seeing the above-referred order of the Complainant reflected in his account on the portal of Flipkart.com, the OP No. 2 on 28^th May 2022 itself booked the ordered consignment of Livguard LG 1100PV+PT 155STJ Tubular Inverter Battery from its Bhubaneswar Warehouse through its Logistic Partener, namely Five Star Logistic vide LR No. 0214581 to be delivered to the place of the Complainant, namely Guddy, Fatak Santinagar, Atha Colony, Sambalpur. Logistic Partner of the OP No. 2, namely Five Star Logistic attempted delivery of the above-referred ordered product to the above-referred place of the Complainant Thrice i.e. on 01.06.2022, on 03.06.2022 and on 04.06.2022 i.e. one day prior to the committed expected date of delivery i.e. 05.06.2022 but the Complainant refused to accept/receive the said consignment”. Further in its version the OP No. 2 & 3 mentioned that “the Complainant had already got this refund from the OP No. 1, Flipkart.com on 07.09.2022, to whom he placed order and made the payment of the ordered product”. But the OP No. 1 has not mentioned in his version anywhere that the amount paid by the Complainant was refund. However if the payment is refund that is as per the version of the OP No. 2 & 3 after filing of the case i.e on dtd. 07.09.2022. So the deficiency and unfair trade practice of the seller i.e OP No. 3 is found. In the other hand as the OP No. 1 is the intermediary and the OP No. 2 is the Warehouse and logistics Company, they have no deficiency in service.

 

                                                ORDER

The case is disposed of on contest. The O.P No. 3 is directed to return the amount to the Complainant which was paid by the Complainant at the time order of the product, if not refunded, Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony, deficiency in service to the Complainant as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 1^st day of May, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.