Orissa

Cuttak

CC/82/2023

Dr Sunil Kumar Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipcart International Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 Nov 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.82/2023

 

Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath,

S/o: Simanchal Rath,

Plot No.3C/876,Sector-10,CDA,

Cuttack-753014.                                                 ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

Flip Kart Internet Pvt. Ltd.,

Located at Buildings Alyssa,Begonia & Clover,

Embassy Tech Over, Outer Ring Road,

                   Devarabeesanahalli,Village:Bengaluru,

                  Bangalore-560103.                                  ...Opp.Party.

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    16.03.2023

Date of Order:  10.11.2023

 

For the complainant:                Self.

For the O.P                :           Mr. Sri S.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member. 

The case of the complainant in short is that he had purchased a dress through O.P on 10.2.23 vide order No.OD3272539020640761100  on payment of Rs.615/-.  It is alleged by the complainant that the dress, which was delivered to him by the O.P is of different in size/unaccepted quality.  Hence, he contacted the Customer Care of O.P, who did not take any steps and that ID also has been blocked.  It is further stated by the complainant that “Bed” is the manufacturer and business partner of O.P, so also that product is sold by the O.P.  As such, the responsibility of the O.P is to exchange the product or to refund the price but the O.P without taking any steps blocked the ID after the sale.  The complainant stated to have contacted the O.P time and again but of no avail.  It is alleged by the complainant that the O.P neither took any step to refund his money nor exchanged the product.  Thereafter the complainant stated to have served a legal notice on 25.2.2023 to the O.P to solve his problem but the O.P did not respond.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.P to refund Rs.615/- the price of the dress as well as to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for his mental agony and harassment alongwith cost of his litigation.

          The complainant has filed some documents alongwith his complaint petition in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version stating therein that he is not the seller of any product but merely an online intermediary and provides common platform to the buyer and independent third-party seller. It is stated by him that the seller in the present case is M/s. Shree Marketing.  It is stated by the O.P that he sent a grievance of the complainant to the seller to resolve the grievance of him as well as he investigated into the account of the complainant maintained with the O.P. It is found that the complainant is an abuser of sellers return policy as he had long history of creating return request on similar grounds and obtaining refund against such return requests.  Thus, for securing the interest of the innocent seller, the complainant’s account was black listed for any other transaction.  It is further stated by the O.P that the present dispute is between the complainant and the independent third-party seller and he has no role to play in the transaction.  There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the O.P and hence, O.P does not render any liability arising out of such sale transaction.   It is stated that he is an intermediary who through its web interface “www.flipkart.com” provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale who sales  their product(s) to the users of the Flipkart Platform.  It is stated that the sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by different persons/stakeholders. The O.P does not directly or indirectly sales any product on Flipkart platform rather all the products of Flipkart are sold by third party sellers who have availed the online market place service provided by the O.P on the terms decided by the respective sellers only.  The O.P neither offers nor provides any assurance for refund facility to the buyers of the product.   It is stated by the O.P that the products are not sold by him.  As such it is stated that there is no latches on the part of the O.P.  Hence, the O.P has prayed for dismissal of the complaint case with cost.

          The O.P has filed evidence affidavit in support of his case which when perused, it is noticed that the same is only the reiteration of the written version of the O.P and nothing else.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, 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.P ?

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

Issues no.i & ii.

Issues no.i & ii  being the pertinent issues are taken up  together first for convenience here in this case.

On perusal of the case record, it reveals from the receipt as filed by the complainant that one dress has been delivered by the O.P in the name of one Rudra Narayan on payment of Rs.615/-.  The complainant has not whispered any word about the said Rudra Narayan nor has clarified the relation with him.  Hence, it cannot be said that the complainant has ordered for delivery of a dress to the O.P. On this score alone, the complaint case is not maintainable.  It is alleged by the complainant that the dress, which was received by him is of different size and quality but he has not produced any evidence to the effect that which size of dress or quality to which he has ordered and what size and type of dress was delivered to him.  Hence, the complainant is not able to prove his allegation as regards to the size of dress as well as quality of dress.  The complainant also has alleged in his complaint petition that ‘Bed’ the manufacturer of dress and the O.P being the business partner of him exclusively sales the product but the O.P has stated that M/s Shree Marketing is the seller of said product.  The receipt filed by the complainant reveals that the product has been sold by “Shree Marketing.  Hence, the contention of the complainant to the effect that ‘Bed’ is the manufacturer of the said product and O.P sales that product cannot be believed.  No other evidence has been led by the complainant to prove his case to the effect that the O.P is the seller of the product.  Hence, it is held that the complainant has not made a party to the seller of the product i.e. dress and has made party only to the O.P who operates as an online market place and E-commerce entity, which facilitate the sales.  The complainant alleges deficiency of service on the part of seller, who has not been impleaded as a party in the present case.  As such, the complaint petition is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party.

In view of the above, the complainant has neither produced sufficient evidence to prove his case to the effect that he is a “consumer” nor proved any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P so also, the complainant could not prove the deficiency of service by the seller.    Hence, the case of the complainant is not maintainable.

Issue no. iii.

From the discussions as made above, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P.  and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost. 

Order pronounced in the open court on the 10^th day of   November,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member

                                                                                       Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President