Delhi

East Delhi

CC/430/2016

MRIDUL - Complainant(s)

Versus

FLIPCART - Opp.Party(s)

08 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 430/16

 

Shri Mridul Jain

R/o 125, Rishabh vihar

Delhi – 110 092

Also at:

F-328, Karkardooma Courts

Delhi – 110 032                                                         ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Flipkart Internet Private Limited

2^nd Floor, I-2/16, Ansari Road

Daryaganj, Delhi – 110 002

Also at:

Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor

7^th Main Road, 80 Feet Road

3^rd Block, Koramangala Industrial Layout,

Bangalore – 560 034

 

2. Myntra

Maruthi Chamber Annex Building

Rupena Agrahara, Hosur Road

Bangalore – 560 068

Also at:

Dev Niwas, K-2 Block, Khasra No. 819

Mahipalpur, New Delhi – 110 037

 

3. Vector E-Commerce Pvt. Ltd.

2^nd Floor, No. 14, 11^th Main, Sector-7

HSR Layout, Bangalore – 560 102

Also at:

Dev Niwas, K-2 Block, Khasra No. 819

Mahipalpur, New Delhi – 110 037                                     …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 19.08.2016

Date of Order: 08.10.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

ORDER

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Mridul Jain against Flipkart Internet Private Limited (OP-1), Myntra (OP-2) and Vector E-Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

            The facts in brief are that the complainant Shri Mridul Jain ordered certain goods on mobile application Myntra vide order no. 106960261 which were to be delivered at the office of complainant at F-328, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi–32.  Delivery executive of OP visited the office of the complainant on 02.01.2016 to deliver the goods and told the complainant that in future, no delivery would be made at the office address.  The complainant opposed to this behavior.  On this delivery executive left without delivering the goods. 

            The complainant immediately lodged complaint with customer support system of Myntra (OP-2).  On the same day, he received an email from OP-2 stating that OP-2 have received a request from complainant to cancel one or more items.  He immediately replied to this said email and clarified that he has not given any such request.  Thereafter, the complainant received a communication from OP-2 that the order would be delivered till 07.01.2016.  On the same day, he received another mail from OP-2 stating that complainant have to place a new order and the goods would not be reshipped. 

            He again wrote an email to OP-2 mentioning their strange behavior and demanded proper action on his complaint.  On 03.01.2016, complainant received email from OP-2 stating that OP-2 was training its courier executives to be more courteous and professional. 

            It has further been stated that complainant has spent several hours to select the ordered goods, but the goods has not been delivered to the complainant. 

            He issued a legal notice dated 24.02.2016 to OP-2 and OP-3, but later on it was revealed that Myntra (OP-2) was taken over by Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) to which again the notice was given of dated 15.03.2016.  It has been stated that these acts of OPs had caused mental harassment and torture for which he has claimed damages of Rs. 50,000/-.  Thus, he has prayed for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards wastage of time and for misbehavior done by the courier executive, mental pain, agony and torture, due to deficiency in service.

           

Heard on Admission

            The only and the short point which arises in this complaint has been as to whether on facts stated in the complaint, the complaint can be termed as a “complaint” within the definition of Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act (herein called Act).  It has been argued on behalf of complainant that the facts stated in the complaint come within the definition of complaint under the Act.  She has further argued that there has been deficiency on the part of service provider.

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the complainant, it would be relevant to have a look to Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:-

Section 2(1)(c) “complaint” means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that:-

1. -
2. [the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him] suffer from one or more defects;
3. [the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him] suffer from deficiency in any respect;

 

            A bare perusal of these two clauses show that the complaint must be in writing with allegations that the goods which have been purchased or agreed to be purchased by him suffer from one or more defects or the services availed or agreed to be hired or availed suffer from any deficiency.  Thus, either the goods should suffer from any defect or there should have been deficiency in service.  Therefore, if the allegations in the complaint pertain to this, then and only then the complaint will be termed a complaint falling under the definition of “complaint” as provided under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. 

            On the touch stone of this, it has to be seen as to whether the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint come within the definition of “complaint” as provided under the Act.  If the allegations made in the complaint are perused, it is noticed that complainant have booked certain items on the application of Myntra (OP-2) which were to be delivered at the office address of complainant at Karkardooma Courts.  No such delivery has been made to the complainant and the complainant have put certain allegations for not delivering the items.  It is only due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs as well as compensation for wastage of time and misbehavior done by the courier executive, the complainant have claimed damages for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.  From these facts, it comes out that complainant have ordered the goods to be delivered at his office address which is Karkardooma Courts Complex.  The documents which have been placed on record show that Myntra     (OP-2) made attempts to deliver the goods which were unsuccessful.  This has been stated in the email of 02.01.2016.  Further, they have asked for placement of new order and have also apologized for the inconvenience due to the rude behaviour of their courier executive.  These are the only documents showing that complainant placed an order of certain items which were not delivered, though; unsuccessful attempts were made by the executive of OP-2.  When the items have not been delivered, the question of goods suffering from any defect does not arise.  Thus, the allegations contained in the complaint are not covered under Cause (ii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act.

            Further, whether they come under Clause (iii) of Section 2(1)(c)  of the Act, here this clause relates to availing of any services.  Even if it is assumed that the complainant have agreed to avail the services, such services must suffer from any deficiency.  No deficiency has been stated by the complainant in his complaint except the misbehavior of executive of OP-2.  The complainant have been in correspondence with OP-2 for getting the items delivered at his office address which are the court premises.  The executive of OP-2 could not deliver the items at the office address of complainant which is a chamber in the court premises which is evident from the correspondence stating that they have made unsuccessful attempts to deliver the items.  Non-delivery of items at the court premises and the misbehavior of their executive, if any, cannot be construed a deficiency as provided in Section 2(g) of the Act. 

            When the allegations contained in the complaint do not fall under any of the clauses i.e. Clause (ii) and (iii) of the definition of “Complaint” as provided in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, the complaint of the complainant cannot be termed a “complaint” as provided under the Act. 

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complaint cannot be admitted which deserve its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.    

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President