Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/187/2019

Flipkart Internet Private Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arun Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Kumar Adv.

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	187 of 2019
Date of Institution	26.08.2019
Date of Decision	29.11.2019

1.      Flipkart Internet Pvt. Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560034 (India), through its Director/ Managing Director.

Now registered office at Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clover, Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru-560103, Karnataka, India.

2.    Binny Bansal, Director, Flipkart Internet Pvt. Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560034 (India).

                                …..Appellants/Opposite Parties.

                                Versus

1. Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Bindeshwari Parshad Yadav, R/o H.No.3218, Mouli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh.

                                      ....Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Uprise Bharat Industries, 3/122, UGF Karan Street, Vishwas Nagar, New Delhi, thorough its Proprietor/Partner.   

                ....Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.3.

 

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Rohit Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.

Respondents already exparte vide order dated 07.10.2019.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.06.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it partly allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.450 of 2018, which reads thus :-

“10.        In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

[a]    To pay Rs.15,869/- to the Complainant;

 [b]   To pay Rs.7,500/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

 11.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].

12.       The Complainant shall return the Nokia Handset in question, if it is in his possession, to the Opposite Parties, after the compliance of the order.”

 

2.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the complainant :-

 “1.  In brief, the Complainant booked one mobile handset (Xaiomi Mi A1 Gold, 64GB) on 15.07.2018 on the website of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, which was sold by Opposite Party No.3. The said mobile handset was delivered to the Complainant on 18.07.2018 on payment of Rs.15,869/-. However, on opening the box, the Complainant was shocked to see one old Nokia Handset instead of Xaiomi Mi A1 Gold, 64 GB. As such, the Complainant immediately brought the said fact to the notice of Opposite Party No.1, who though assured to resolve the issue, but did nothing to redress the grievance of the Complainant and eventually blocked his account by giving vague reasons. Hence the complainant has brought this consumer complaint.”

3.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to the complaint filed by the complainant :-

“3.    Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 contested the complaint and filed their written statement, inter alia, pleading that they merely acts as an intermediary i.e. providing the seller and the buyer a platform to do online purchase and sale and other than it, answering Opposite Parties are not involved in any other aspect. The product in question was sold by a seller (Opposite Party No.3) and not by the answering Opposite Parties and therefore, the answering Opposite Parties cannot be made liable for the negligence, if any, of some third party. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.”  

4.             Opposite Party No.3 did not appear, despite service. Hence, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.11.2018.

5.             The complainant, filed replication to the written statement of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. 

6.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.             After hearing Counsel for the contesting parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, partly allowed the complaint, as stated above.

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

9.             We have heard Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

10.           Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 has submitted that the Forum has ignored the fact that the appellants were only a online portal and the product, in question, was not sold by them. He further submitted that the portal is a marketplace, wherein, third party vendors/sellers who wish to use the platform, register themselves as vendors/sellers and list their products and offer the said products for sale. He further submitted that the job of the appellants is only to provide assistance to both the parties i.e. seller and purchaser being intermediary. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Forum.   

11.           After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

12.           The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. It is clearly proved from Exhibit C-1 that the complainant purchased Xaiomi Mi mobile handset. Respondent No.1/complainant also placed on record some photographs (Exhibits C-2 to C-7). From this document, it is evident that one Nokia handset was delivered to the complainant instead of Xaiomi Mi mobile handset. Therefore, it is clearly proved that product received by the complainant is totally different from what was ordered by him. For the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, the complainant exchanged number of emails (Exhibit C-8) but to no avail. The plea only taken by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 that they are only a online portal and the product, in question, was not sold by them. Further, the appellants stated that the said portal is a marketplace, wherein, third party vendors/sellers who wish to use the platform, register themselves as vendors/sellers and list their products and offer the said products for sale. The said pleas taken by the appellants has no value at all because the appellants i.e. “Flipkart Internet Private Limited” is well established Company and using their platform, the other companies sell their products and if the purchaser receives a different product, which was not ordered by him, the appellants are also equally responsible alongwith Opposite Party No.3 and, as such, the Forum while passing the impugned order rightly held that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 i.e. the appellants are also liable if the product sold by a third party seller (Opposite Party No.3) on their platform turned to be defective product or otherwise.

13.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.                   For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

15.           In view of dismissal of this appeal, the application for condonation of delay of 31 days (as per office report 30 days) in filing appeal, filed by the appellants, stands infructuous. 

16.          Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

17.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

November 29^th, 2019                        (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

                                                                PRESIDENT   
                       

                                                       

                                                          (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

                                                        (RAJESH K. ARYA)

                                                                MEMBER

 

rb

                                      

                                     

 

                                      STATE COMMISSION

APPEAL No. 187 of 2019

(Flipkart Internet Private Limited & anr. Vs. Arun Kumar)

Argued by:

 

Sh. Rohit Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.

Respondents already exparte vide order dated 07.10.2019.

 

Dated the  29^th day of  November, 2019

                                                          -.-

                   Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal has been dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.

 

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI) PRESIDENT

(RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER

 

rb