DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 361 of 18.9.2017

                                      Decided on: 7.9.2021

Rohit Sood S/o Sh.Rakshpal Sood R/o H.No.59-A, Mohindra Complex, Street No.2, New Officer Colony, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, No.6/B, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034 through its MD/Manager.
2. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd., Near Shakti Clinic Shakti Complex, Sirhindi Gate, Patiala through its Manager.     …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar,Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Dinesh Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                                      Opposite parties No.1&2 ex-parte.                               

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. The brief facts of the case  are that  the complainant on the assurance of OP No.1 placed an order for Hugo Boss 1513478 contemporary sport analog watch for men on 22.7.2017 who promised to deliver the same to the complainant by 5.8.2017.It is averred that on 28.7.2017, the OP No.1 informed the complainant that their delivery executive had picked up the order of the complainant vide No.OD109755881444480000 and also informed the complainant on 30.7.2017, 31.7.2017 and 2.8.2017 that the product will be delivered to him and he has to pay Rs.30,050/- to the representative of the OP. It is averred that at the time of delivery of the product on 2.8.2017, he opened the parcel and found that the watch, which was ordered by him was not the same. He immediately brought the matter to the notice of the representative of the OPs but he flatly refused to entertain the complaint. The complainant immediately informed OP No.1 regarding the non supply of the same watch which he had ordered. The OP On 3.8.2017 assured the complainant that the matter will be resolved and they again and again sent message in this regard but on 17.8.2017 they flatly refused to entertain the request of the complainant and also closed the account of the complainant illegally and arbitrarily. It is further averred that the complainant confirmed the price of the watch from the market which was Rs.7000/-.It is further averred that the OPs have played a fraud  with him by sending wrong watch and receiving amount of Rs.30,050/-instead of Rs.7000/-.There is thus not only deficiency in service but the OPs have also committed unfair trade practice .Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.30,050/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till its payment and also to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation and Rs.33000/-as costs of litigation.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs who appeared and filed the written reply.
3. In the written reply filed by OP No.1, it raised objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. On merits , it is pleaded that the product was not sold by the OP. It is admitted that the order was placed with it. It is further pleaded that on the request of the complainant the information was provided to the seller and there is no fault on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. In the written reply filed by OP No.2 it has also raised preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. On merits it is pleaded that the product was not sold by Flipkart but by a seller registered on the Flipkart.com platform. It is admitted that the OP is the delivering agency to provide services to its registered clients all over the country. After denying all other averments, this OP has also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C39 and has closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of OPs, the ld. counsels have made separate statements that the written statements filed on the behalf be read as evidence.
7. Here, it is submitted that none appeared on behalf of the OPs for addressing arguments and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 3.9.2021
8. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. To prove this case, complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is the tax invoice of Rs.30,050/-, Ex.C2 is also document of Flipkart,Ex.C3 to Ex.C37 are the correspondence with the parties.
10. No evidence was given by the OPs. So it is not proved that the watch was actually given back to the Flipkart and they have refunded the money. More so, it was the duty of the Flipkart Internet Private Ltd. and not of Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd.
11. So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the complainant is directed to return the watch to the Flipkart and Flipkart shall refund the amount of Rs.30,050/- back to the complainant with no order as to costs.Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:7.9.2021         

                                    Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar       Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                              Member                                      President