Haryana

Kaithal

392/20

Ankush - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipcart - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.392/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 10.11.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:18.04.2023.

Ankush (Mobile No.8683015436) son of Sh. Balkar Singh, resident of Village Rohera, Tehsil Rajound, Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Branch Manager, Flipkart) Model Town, Karnal-132001.
2. Manager, Flipkart Internet Private Ltd. Vasnavi Sumit, No.6/B, 7 Main, 80 ft. road, Third Block, Koramangla, Banglore.
3. Manager, Axis Bank, Branch Khanda, Aleva. 

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.   

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the OPs No.1 & 2.

                OP No.3 exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Ankush-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that on 20.02.2020 the complainant had booked an order for purchase of mobile set make Realme 5i (Aqua Blue) through online from Flipkar Company for the sum of Rs.8099/-.  The said order was pre-paid bearing ID No.117902432589386000 and the amount was deducted from his account in Axis Bank Branch Aleva from Card No.5305620209705066.  It is alleged that the said order was cancelled but the said amount was not refunded by the Flipkar Company.     So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.          Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared before this Commission, whereas OP No.3 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 05.01.2021 passed by this Commission.  OPs No.1 & 2  contested the complaint by filing their joint written version raising preliminary objections that the answering respondents provide 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 respondents do 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 respondents.  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 Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondents No.1 & 2  tendered into evidence document Annexure-R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

6.             The complainant has argued that he had booked an order for purchase of mobile set make Realme 5i (Aqua Blue) through online from Flipkar Company for the sum of Rs.8099/-.  The said order was pre-paid bearing ID No.117902432589386000 and the amount was deducted from his account in Axis Bank Branch Aleva from Card No.5305620209705066.  It is further argued that the said order was cancelled but the said amount was not refunded by the Flipkar Company.  So, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 

7.             Ld. counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 has argued that the respondents provide online marketplace platform/technology.  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.  It is further argued that the respondents do not directly or indirectly sells any products on flipkart platform.

8.             We have perused all the record available on the file.  It is clear from the Annexure-C1 that the order of mobile set booked by the complainant was cancelled by the seller on 21.02.2020.  It is also clear from shipping details as per Annexure-C2 that the complainant did not receive the refund of his payment.  So, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2-Flipkart Company.

9.             Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint against the Ops No.1 & 2 and dismiss the present complaint against OP No.3 with the direction to Ops No.1 & 2 to refund the amount of Rs.8099/- to the complainant within 45 days.  The Ops No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant.  However, it is made clear that if the OPs No.1 & 2 are failed to make the payment of Rs.8099/- to the complainant within stipulated period, then they are liable to pay the interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.         

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs No.1 & 2 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 both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:18.04.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.