PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 77/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member

Sanjeeb Kumar Mishra,

S/O-Late Kunu Mishra,

At/PO-Kinaloi, Via-Laida, Ps-Katarbaga,

Dist-Sambalpur-768214, Odisha.

Mob-6370791549                                                                      ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. Flipkart India PVt. Ltd.

Vaishnavi Summit Ground Floo, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block,

KaromangalaIdustrial Layout Bangaluru KA IN-560034.

2. Thomson TV India, Super PlastronicsPvt. Ltd.

S-24, Okla Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.    ...…....……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Self
2. For the O.P. No.1                           :- Sri. A.K. Sahoo & Associates
3. For the O.P.No.2                :- Ex-parte

Date of Filing:29.02.2024,  Date of Hearing :13.08.2024  Date of Judgement : 07.10.2024

Presented by Sri SadanandaTripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant had ordered a Thomson TV app on 14^th Jan 2024 with a cost of Rs. 10,009/- which received on 16^th Jan, 2024. As per service rules a technician from the OP No. 2 visited the house of the Complainant to install the TV on 22^nd Jan, 2024 and found that the TV had some technical fault as the TV did not switch on and the technician did his way of proceeding and assured the Complainant a new TV will be delivered in exchange soon. Then the Complainant on the Flipkart app return page went through the return link and uploaded Tax Invoice in order to return the TV within return period. After several communication through telephone, neither Thomson nor Flipkart providing relieve to the Complainant and replacing the TV. Hence this case. 
2. The Written Version of the O.P No. 1 is that the OP No. 1is a company engaged into wholesale cash and carry business and does not sell any product on retail basis. The OP No. 1 is not engaged in the business of sale of any product to the end customer. The OP No. 1 is a wholesaler and is only engaged in B2B sales. The OP No. 1 does not operate any e-commerce platform either. Moreover, the Complainant had not paid any amount of consideration to the OP No. 1 at any point of time. Thus, the Complainant is not a consumer of the OP No. 1. The Complainant had purchased the said products from a seller using the market platform ‘Flipkart.com’ which is owned and operated by a separate entity incorporated under the companies Act, under the name of Flipkart Internet Private Limited which is distinct and separate from the op No. 1. The contract of sale is only between the said seller and the Complainant and hence, the OP no. 1 cannot be held liable for any liability arising out of such contract.

3. From the records, submission and evidences, it is found that the product was received on dtd. 16.01.2024 but it was found to be damaged/Defective. The Complainant initiated a return request for the damaged/Defective product on the same day of receipt. Despite repeated attempts and several calls to the OP’s concern customer care, the return request was unjustly rejected by the OP’s concern. However, as manufacturing defect found,   the OP No. 2 is liable for deficiency in service. Accordingly it is ordered.         

                                               ORDER

The O.P No. 2 is directed to refund Rs. 10,009/- towards cost of the TV to the Complainant and return the TV from the Complainant, Rs. 25,000/- 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.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 7^th day of Oct, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.