Flipart Building V/S Mr.Shubham - Consumer Court Case

Gift Card ID	Amt. Redeemed	Remaining Balance	Expiry Date
6000171025495517	10000	0	22 Jun 2021
6000171029312871	10000	0	22 Jun 2021
6000171021509981	2404	0	23 Jun 2021
6000171021946158	3010	0	23 Jun 2021
60001710279444829	1254	0	23 Jun 2021
6000171024398898	7161	0	24 Jun 2021
6000171026110690	9507	0	24 Jun 2021
6000171027247874	1000	0	24 Jun 2021
6000171029514402	1453	0	24 Jun 2021
6000170054427001	2000	0	05 Jul 2021
6000170055120974	1050	0	05 Jul 2021
6000170056266172	2000	0	05 Jul 2021
6000170058644911	151	899	05 Jul 2021

The complainant further stated that on the next date he got an E-mail that his Flipkart account has been blocked and his last order has been cancelled due to irregularities in payment method. The gift cards were also stuck in his Flipkart wallet i.e. approximately about INR63000. The complainant sent various E-mails and phone calls to Flipkart and also called Flipkart customer care with request to refund the amount who assured to refund the money but till date the OP had not refunded the total amount paid by the complainant. The complainant claimed to have suffered harassment and agony due to unprofessional and unethical approach of the OP. the complainant also served a legal notice dated 09.03.2021 upon the OP but to no reply was given. However, on 28.04.2021, the OP transferred Rs.32,768/- through NEFT in account of the complainant but remaining refund is still pending towards the OP. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OP to refund Rs.32,232/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; suppression of material facts; lack of cause of action etc. The OP stated that is an electric platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between the sellers and the customers. In this manner, the OP has acted only as an intermediary as per Section 2(1) (w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and as per Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system. All the products on Flipkart platform are sold by the third party seller and the opposite party does not offer or provide any warranty to the end buyers of the product through its platform. The OP further stated that section 5(1) of Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 also provides for exemption to market place e-commerce entity under sub section 1 of Section 79, who complies with sub-Section (2) and (3) of that section. Moreover, the OP does not directly or indirectly sell any products on Flipkart Platform rather all the products on Flipkart Platform are sold by third party sellers, who avail the online market place services provided by the OP on terms decided by the respective sellers only. The OP further stated that the complainant purchased Laptop of Asus brand from third party seller (Tech Connect Retail Private Limited) and payment of which was made by using E-vouchers purchased by the complainant from a third party/original buyer. The order of laptop was cancelled due to irregularities found in payment methods and for safety purpose and the refund of the same was made by the seller in the original mode of payment. According to the OP, few irregularities were noticed in the Flipkart account of the complainant and due to the same, in compliance to the safety measures, the account of the complainant was deactivated. The OP further stated that when the complainant raised his grievance pertaining to refund of e-vouchers to the respective linked bank account with the OP, the same was duly escalated to the seller. Upon due investigation, it was found that only Rs.32,768/- could have been refunded to the complainant in his bank account against refund of e-vouchers accumulated by the complainant against return of various orders. The same was duly refunded to the complainant in due course of time and the same was also admitted by the complainant himself. Further for rest of the E-vouchers, the complainant needs to contract the original buyer of such vouchers as the same had not been purchased by the complainant. The OP further stated that he is ready to arrange for refund of rest of the E-vouchers given the original buyers contacts the OP with the same Email ID as was used for purchasing the E-vouchers. For security reason, refund of E-vouchers cannot be given to any other person or account. The original buyer needs to contact the OP requesting refund of E-vouchers in bank account. The said communication was duly forwarded to the complainant vide E-mail dated 02.03.2021.

The OP further stated that as per the terms and conditions applicable on Gift Cards (as provided on www.flipkart.com) clearly provides that buyer of gift card “can only purchase 100 Gift Cards in a 30-day period and the aggregate value of the Gift Cards purchased cannot be more than Rs.1,00,000/- in a month. Purchased exceeding these limits shall be cancelled automatically.” The OP further stated that the complainant himself admitted and claimed in his complaint that he purchased gift cards worth more than 3 Lakhs which the complainant must have used different mail IDs to purchase gift cards. The OP cannot refund amount of a gift card in an account not purchased or linked to that specific account.

On merits, the OP reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The OP stated that has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The complainant failed to tender formal evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunities including last and final chances and imposition of cost of Rs.200/-. Even neither any one turned up on behalf of the complainant nor costs deposited.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Ms. Sheetal Tiwari, the authorized signatory of the OP along with document Ex. R1 is the copy of terms and conditions applicable on gift cards and closed the evidence.

5. The complainant in this case has not been appearing since 05.02.2024. We have, however, gone through the record and heard arguments on behalf of the counsel for the OP. We proceed to decide the case on merits.

6. In this case, the complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission regarding non-refund of amount of Rs.32,232/- being the remaining price/e-vouchers which he used for the purchase of Asus laptop. However, as per policy of the OP, as per the terms and conditions applicable on Gift Cards Ex. R1 the buyer of gift card “can only purchase 100 Gift Cards in a 30-day period and the aggregate value of the Gift Cards purchased cannot be more than Rs.1,00,000/- in a month. Purchased exceeding these limits shall be cancelled automatically.” As per the OP, the complainant himself admitted and claimed in his complaint that he purchased gift cards worth more than 3 Lakhs which the complainant must have used different mail IDs to purchase gift cards and the OP cannot refund amount of a gift card in an account not purchased or linked to that specific account.

7. It is further pertinent to mention that in this case, nobody has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 05.02.2024 and has further failed to tender any formal evidence despite grant of sufficient chances and imposition of costs of Rs.200/-. Even the complainant has failed to deposit the imposed costs of Rs.200/-. It appears that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting this complaint any further. Even otherwise, as per the version of the OP, the complainant is not entitled for any further refund. In these circumstances, in our considered view, this complaint need not to be proceeded any further and is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

8. As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9. Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

(Monika Bhagat) (Sanjeev Batra)

Member President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:23.02.2024.

Gobind Ram.