Orissa

Cuttak

CC/429/2023

Mahima Tripathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Person,Flipkart India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

D Mishra

24 Jul 2024

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.429/2023

Smt. Mahi@Mahima Tripathy,

W/o: Prashant Tiwari,

At:Mathasahi,Bengali Colony,

                Tulasipur,Cuttack:753008.                                        ...Complainant

 

          Vrs.

 

1.        Authorised Person,

Flipkart India Private Limited,

Head Office at Vaishnavi Summit.

Ground Floor,7^th Main,80 Feet Road,

                   3^rd Block,Koramangala Industrial Layout,

                     Bangalore-5600034.

 

2.       Authorised Person,

Regd. Office at Buildings Alyssa,Begonia & Clover,

Embassy Tech Village,Outer Ring Road,

Devarabeesanahalli Village Bengaluru,

                   Bangalore-560103

 

3.       Authorised Person,

Kurl On Enterprise Ltd.,

                  N-301,3rd Floor,North Block,

Manipal Centre,47 Dickenson Road,

                  Bangalore-560042.

 

4.       The Administration Head,

Zuari Furniture, Admin Office,

40,Second Main Road,First Floor,

Uni pounchPride Building,

Ambattur Industrial Estate,

                   Chennai-600058,Tamilnadu.                                          ..Opp.Parties.

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    26.12.2023

Date of Order:  24.07.2024

 

For the complainant:            Mr. D.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.1& 2:            Mr. A.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps No.3      :                     None. 

For the O.P No.4:                    Mr. I.Mohanty,(A/R)

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                   

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had purchased through FlipKart online a Zuari Paris Engineered Wood King Box Bed vide order ID-OD329128525126119100 for a consideration of Rs.17,850/- which was delivered to her on 17.9.2023 and was installed on 18.9.2023.   Subsequently, the complainant had booked one Kurl On Dual Comfort Soft Firm High Resilience mattress as recommended size mattress for the aforesaid bed that which she had purchased which also she had placed order through FlipKart vide invoice number FAEWT2400006301 on 3.10.2023,  But after delivery of the same, she noticed that the said Kurl On Dual Comfort Soft Firm High Resilience mattress did not fit properly to her bed that which she had purchased and rather it was smaller by 10 inches in length from it.  Immediately thereafter she had requested to return the said mattress but such request of the complainant was not responded.   She had sent several messages to that effect.  The FlipKart had sent return message mentioning therein that the technician had visited and inspected the disputed bed and mattress and had resolved the issue though practically no such technician had ever visited her house.  The complainant was compelled to issue a legal notice to the O.Ps on 6.11.2023 in this context.  Ultimately when no fruitful result had yielded, the complainant had approached before this Commission seeking cost of the mattress to the tune of Rs.9,942/- alongwith a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards her mental agony and harassment, further a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the false promises of the O.Ps and another sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of her litigation.  She has also demanded interest @ 18% per annum on the said claim as made by her from the O.Ps  which is in total to the tune of Rs.1,29,942/-.  The complainant has further prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

          Together with the complaint petition, the complainant has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove her case.

          The complainant has also filed evidence affidavit which when perused, it appears to be a reiteration of the contents of complaint petition.

2.       Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case having not preferred to contest this case, O.P no.3 has been set exparte vide order dated 23.2.2024.  The rest of the O.Ps have contested this case but have filed their separate written versions.

          As per the written version of O.P no.1, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  O.P no.1 has urged that it does not sell any product rather it only provides online platform thereby enabling the trader and the purchaser to have their trade.   It is thus only a facilitator who provides online marketplace platform.  Accordingly, it has no role to play in the product intended to be purchased by the complainant and sold by O.P no.4 to her.

          O.P No.2 similarly through it’s written version has stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.  It has also stated that they only provide online platform enabling trade in-between the buyer and the seller.  They provide only e-commerce platform and thus they only act as an intermediary in the trade.  They have no role in the purchase of the complainant but had only delivered the goods as sold to the complainant by O.P no.4 of this case. Thus, they have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with exemplary cost.

          O.P no.4 through it’s written version has stated that the customer/complainant has purchased a King size bed from them on 11.9.2023 through FlipKart and subsequently had also purchased a queen size mattress.  The complainant had approached through FlipKart to return the mattress which was denied by the FlipKart.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps no.1,2 & 4, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

 

 

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no. ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, written versions, written notes of submission as filed from both the sides, evidence affidavit as filed  by the complainant as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that admittedly, the complainant had opt for a King size Wooden Box Bed from O.P no.4 which he had indented through O.Ps no.1 & 2 vide order number ID-OD329128525126119100 on 11.9.2023 which was delivered to her on 17.11.2023 and she had paid them the  quoted price of Rs.17,850/-.  She has also opted to purchase one Kurl On Dual Comfort Soft Firm High Resilience mattress for her purchased bed which she had also ordered through FlipKart vide order invoice number FAEWT2400006301 on 3.10.2023.  She has urged that the said mattress was recommended to her to fit into her purchased bed but after purchasing the same she could notice that the mattress is 10 inches shorter than the length of the bed.  On perusal of the documents as provided by the complainant herself in this case, nowhere it is made out that if she was suggested by anyone of the O.Ps that the Kurl On Dual Comfort Soft Firm High Resilience mattress of multi colour would fit into her purchased King size Wooden Box Bed.  In absence of any document to that effect it cannot be concluded here in this case that the complainant was suggested by any of the O.Ps in order to go for purchasing the mattress which would not fit into her purchased bed. Thus, the mere allegation as putforth by the complainant here in this case does not hold good due to lack of cogent evidence.  As such, this Commission after considering the facts and circumstances of this case comes to an irresistible conclusion that there was absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of any of the O.Ps as alleged by the complainant.  This issue thus goes against the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant cannot be said to be maintainable and the complainant is also not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps no.1, 2 & 4 and exparte against O.P no.3  and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 24^th day of July,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

 

                                                                               Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                       President

                     

 

                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                             Member