BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.135 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 01.06.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:21.02.2022.

Ajay Dhull, aged 31 years son of Sh. Ranbir Singh, R/o Balraj Nagar, Kaithal, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

Flipkart Internet Private Ltd. Buidins Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech. Village Outerring Road Devarkeesana Halli Village Bengaluru-560103, Karnatka, India.

….Respondent.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:     Complainant in person.   

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Ajay Dhull-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondent.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased the washing machine MarQ 8.5 Kg. 5 Star rating semi automatic, Top Load White, Blue (MQSA85H5B) from the respondent through online and the total price of washing machine was Rs.7800/- and in exchange offer the complainant had to pay Rs.6300/- to the respondent by exchange of old washing machine worth Rs.1500/-.  The complainant has made payment vide SBI Credit Card No.4335887855687362 in Flipkart account No.7700033200.  The case of complainant is that the respondent without any reason and excuse has cancelled the order of complainant in exchange scheme on 30.04.2020.  The complainant contacted the respondent customer care, they gave the reason that due to “Unforeseen reasons” the order of complainant has been cancelled and the respondent told that they have increased the price of washing machine to the extent of Rs.9499/-.   So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondent and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondent appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections that the answering respondent provides online marketplace platform/technology; that the said ‘Flipkart Platform’ is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transaction between independent third party sellers and independent end customers.  The independent third party sellers use the Flipkart Platform to list, advertise and offer to sell their products to the users/buyer who visit the Flipkart Platform.  Once a buyer accepts the offer of sale of the products made by the third party seller on the Flipkart Platform, the seller is intimated electronically and is required to ensure that the products are made available and delivered in accordance to the delivery terms as per the terms for sale displayed by seller on the Flipkart Platform.  The answering respondent does not directly or indirectly sells any products on flipkart platform.  In the instant complaint also, it can be evidenced that the actual seller of the product is a third party seller (who is not impleaded as a party).  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.Op1/A alongwith document Annexure-A and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of respondent.

5.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             The complainant has stated that he purchased the washing machine MarQ 8.5 Kg. 5 Star rating semi automatic, Top Load White, Blue (MQSA85H5B) from the respondent through online and the total price of washing machine was Rs.7800/- and in exchange offer the complainant had to pay Rs.6300/- to the respondent by exchange of old washing machine worth Rs.1500/-.  It has been argued that the complainant has made payment vide SBI Credit Card No.4335887855687362 in Flipkart account No.7700033200 but the respondent without any reason has cancelled the order of complainant in exchange scheme on 30.04.2020.  The complainant contacted the respondent customer care, they gave the reason that due to “Unforeseen reasons” the order of complainant has been cancelled and the respondent told that they have increased the price of washing machine to the extent of Rs.9499/-.

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Adv. for the respondent has stated that the responder is mere online intermediary and the function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted.  It has been argued that in the instant complaint also, the actual seller of the product is a third party seller, who is not impleaded as party while complainant has wrongly arrayed the respondent Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.  It has been further argued that the role of respondent is to provide online platform to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers.  The product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by the respondent and the respondent has no role in providing delivery or any compensation of the product sold by an independent seller through the Flipkart Platform of the respondent.  The product was allegedly cancelled and the complainant should have filed the complaint against the seller of product not the respondent.  Reliance is placed in the case of Sanchayani Saving Investment (1) Limited & others Vs. State of West Bengal & others, wherein it has been observed that e-commerce market role of Intermediary as defined in Section2(1)(w) of the I.T.Act and the protection granted under Section 79 of the Act wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted protection of Section 79 of the I.T.Act to one of the Intermediary.  It has been further argued that the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India vide its Press Note No.3(2016 Series) in Clause 2.3 (viii) has clarified that in a marketplace model of e-commerce (such as Flipkart.com), any warranty/guarantee of goods and services sold by responsibility of the seller.  It is clarified that as the product is sold by an independent third party seller as settled proposition the liability to deliver the product to the customer rests with seller only not with the respondent-flipkart company.  It has been further argued by Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Adv. for the respondent that the detailed probe is required through enquiry by Civil Court for which he can file his complaint in Civil Court.

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed with the liberty to complainant to file the case regarding this matter, if any, in the civil Court.  A copy of said order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:21.02.2022.    

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.