Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/218/2019

Ginni - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flip Kart - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Suneja

20 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

Complaint no.218/2019.

Date of instt. 28.05.2019. 

                                                          Date of Decision: 20.11.2023.

 

Ginni son of Shiv Kumar resident of Tibba Colony, Ward No.13, Ratia District, Fatehabad.

                                                                             ..Complainant.

                                               

                                                Versus

 

1.Flip Kart Internet Pvt.Ltd. Company having its registered office at Ozone Manay Tech Park #56/18 & 55/09, 7^th floor Garvebhavidalya, Hosur Road, Banglore-560068 (Karnatka) through its Managing Director.

 

2.Flipkart online services Pvt.Ltd. Company having its Regional Office at A55-12, Street No.55, Chakkerpur, Sector 28, Gurugram-122022 (Haryana) through its regional manager.

 

3.M/s Shreyash Retail Limited, E-29, Ring Road, South Extn.II, Opposite Park, New
Delhi-110049 through its proprietor

 

..Opposite Parties.

 

       Complaint under Section 12 Consumer Protection Act. 1986.        

CORAM:              SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                                                                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.

                             DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER

 

Present:           Sh.Manoj Saneja, Advocate for complainant.

Sh.Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for Ops.              

 

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

                             Brief facts of the present case are that on 02.11.2018, the complainant had purchased one Apple Airpods Bluetooth headset with Mic from Ops No.1 & 2 through online by using Debit card of HDFC Bank for a sum of Rs.8999/- which was received by the complainant on 09.11.2018; that on receiving the product in question, the complainant opened the same but found it duplicate and regarding this he lodged complaint with Ops No.1 & 2; that thereafter the complainant received an email on his registered email ID mentioning therein that Thanks for sharing the details with us, Munish. Please be assured that you will receive a call/email at the earliest to address your concern about the product; that thereafter on the asking of Ops No.1 & 2, the complainant visited the customer service centre which issued the report dated 07.01.2019 mentioning therein that Apple airpods is non apple product; that the complainant sent the copy of the said report with return request but the same was rejected on 13.01.2019 by the Ops; that the complainant kept on requesting the Ops either for replacing the product or to refund the same but to no avail and further they refused to do so. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C9.

2.                          On notice, Ops appeared and resisted the complaint by filing their separate replies. Ops No.1 & 2 in their joint reply have submitted that the replying Ops provide online marketplace/ platform and other mechanism/ services to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic commerce for various goods between respective buyers and sellers. The business of OPs falls within the definition of an “intermediary” and they do not sell the product directly or indirectly; that in the present case the actual seller of the product is third party, therefore any kind of assurance qua warranty, price, discount, promotional offer after sale service are provided by the manufacturer of the product; that the replying Ops are neither the traders or the service provider; that all contractual/commercial terms are offered by an agreed to between the buyer and the seller alone and the replying Ops do not have any control or does not determine or advise or in any way involve itself in the offering or acceptance of such contractual/commercial terms between the buyer and the seller;  that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and replying Ops; that the complainant has never been left unattended. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the compliant has been made.

3.                          OP No.3 in its separate reply has submitted that it is carrying on the business of the sale of goods manufactured/produced by others; that the product in question was delivered in sealed box as it was received from the manufacturer/ distributor within the time specified for order; that the present compliant is false and fabricated because the product was delivered with its original condition and in intact manner. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the compliant has been made. In evidence, affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3.

 

4.                We have heard the complainant as well as learned counsels for the OPs and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The fact regarding purchasing of an Apple Airpods Bluetooth headset with Mic (Annexure C-7) and receiving the same by the complainant is not disputed. The grievance of the complainant is that the received product not original and was duplicate of the shown/ordered product, therefore, complaints were lodged with Ops and on their advice the product was got checked from their authorized centre. Learned counsel for the complainant drew the attention of this Commission towards the Service Call Report dated 07.01.2019 (Annexure C8)  wherein it has been mentioned that Apple Airpods is not apple product.

6.                In order to resolve the controversy report issued by service centre placed on the case file as Annexure C8 is very important and vital document. Perusal of this document makes the picture clear that duplicate product was received by the complainant. Perusal of the Annexure C6 reveals that the Ops had rejected the return request of the complainant. We do not find any merit in the contentions of OPs and all OPs are liable to refund the cost of the airpods on account of delivery of duplicate airpods to the complainant as the said order was placed and delivered by Ops. The OPs, in our considered opinion, have acted arbitrarily in the matter.  As provenly, the order in question was placed with them and it is the prime duty of OPs to ensure the delivery of genuine product to the end consumer. It is a reasonable presumption that the seller using the platform of Ops for selling their products are verified and genuine sellers. OPs cannot be allowed to shift their onus upon seller escaping their liability.  All the OPs being liable to ensure delivery of genuine product remained deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant.  It is established on the case file that the Ops have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant which was lodged  by the complainant on receiving of duplicate product. The version taken by the Ops in their replies is not believable because due to unwanted trade practice of the Ops the complainant has suffered loss, mental agony, harassment besides financial loss, therefore, the present complaint deserves acceptance against Ops.

6.                          Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances we allow the present complaint against Ops with a direction to pay to refund Rs.8999/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation. The Ops are further directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.21,000/- (Rs.Twenty One Thousand), towards compensation for harassment and mental agony etc. suffered by the complainant as well as for litigation expenses. The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the awarded amount would carry 9 % interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. The liability of the Ops would remain joint and several.

7.                          In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

 

Announced in open Commission:                                                            Dated:20.11.2023   

 

                                                                                               

                            (K.S.Nirania)                            (Harisha Mehta)                 (Rajbir Singh)                                                        Member                          Member                             President