Orissa

Cuttak

CC/31/2023

Prasanna Swain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipcart Internet Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Self

31 Jan 2024

ORDER

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

C.C.No.31/2023

 

Prasanna Swain,

S/o: Sudarshan Swain,

Resident of: Near Yellow Tower Building,

Infront of Deula Sahi Kali Mandap,

Deula Sahi,Upper Police Colony,

Tulasipur,Cuttack,Orissa,

Pin-753008.                                                                           ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

The Signatory Authority,

Flipkart Internet Private Limited,

Having Regd. Office At: Building Allyssa,Begonia &

Clove Embassy,BTech Village,Outer Ring

Road,Devarabeesanahalli Village,

Bangaluru,Karnataka,India,PIN-560103.                         … Opp. Party.

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    03.02.2023

Date of Order:  31.01.2024

 

For the complainant:                  Self.

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

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                                                      

            Case of the complainant as made out from his complaint petition in short is that he had purchased online a saree through the O.Ps vide order ID No.OD226492795932178000 for an amount of Rs.679/-.  The complainant had placed order for a green coloured saree but the O.P had delivered a sky-blue colour saree to the complainant which is completely different one from that of the choice of the complainant.  For the said reason the complainant had drawn the attention of the O.P in that aspect and had tried to communicate the O.P his grievance on several occasions but there was no response from the side of the O.P for which, the complainant was compelled to knock at the door of this Commission praying for return of the amount as paid by him to the O.P to the tune of Rs.679//- alongwith a compensation of Rs.5000/- towards his mental agony and harassment.  He has further prayed for another cost of Rs.2000/- towards his litigation expenses and has also prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

           Alongwith his complaint petition, the complainant has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

            Initially the complainant had arrayed three O.Ps in this case but subsequently by virtue of his petition O.Ps no.2 & 3 were deleted vide order dt.19.10.2023 and as a result of which it is only O.P no.1 who remained as the sole O.P here in this case.

2.        The O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version.  As per the written version of the O.P, this case is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  According to the O.P, the complainant has suppressed the material facts.  The O.P is not the seller of any product but is an online intermediary providing e-commerce platform to the buyer as well as to the independent third-party seller.  The product which was indented by the complainant was delivered to him after procuring the same in intact condition and the O.P has no occasion to open the packet and see the product inside the sealed packet.  Thus, in toto as it appears from the written version of the O.P that the O.P is in no way liable here in this case for which it is prayed through the written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

           Alongwith his written version, the O.P has filed copy of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce notification in order to prove it’s stand.

           The O.P has also filed evidence affidavit through one Sanchi Chhabra, but the same when perused, it is noticed to be a reiteration of the contents of written version only.

3.        Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper 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?

Issue no.ii.

             For the sake of convenience, issue no.ii  is taken up first to be considered here in this case it being a pertinent issue also.

              After perusing the contents of the complaint petition, written version of O.P, written notes of submission, evidence affidavit as filed by the O.P as well as the documents available in the case record, it is noticed that admittedly the complainant had indented for a saree that which was delivered to him through the O.P on 10.11.2022 and he had paid the consideration amount of Rs.679/-.  While perusing the copies of documents as filed by the complainant himself, it is noticed that the complainant has filed a copy of the invoice which when perused, it reflects the date of order placed by the complainant was on 10.11.2022 which also reflects therein that one Art silk saree of “Free Grey” (grey green) of a price of Rs.674/- was delivered to the complainant.  Thus, the contention of the complainant that though he had indented for a green colour saree he was delivered a sky-blue colour saree gains no corroboration from any corner.  Moreso, there is no scrap of document filed by the complainant in order to apprise this Commission that infact the complainant had placed order for a green colour saree and instead of the same, a sky-blue colour saree was delivered to him.  When the invoice itself reflects that the complainant was delivered a grey- green colour saree for the price of Rs.674/-, this Commission do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P here in this case.  Hence, this issue goes against the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

              From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and that the complainant is entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

                                                  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 31^st day of January,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                        

                                                                                                  

                                                                                                       Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                               President

 

 

                                                                                                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                               Member