DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/44/2022

Date of Institution : 01.02.2022

Date of Decision : 23.01.2023

Rohit Gupta son of Jatinder Kumar resident of Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala. …Complainant

Versus

Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Buidings Alyssa, Begonia and Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru-560103, Karnataka, India. 

…Opposite Party

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Present: Sh. Jatinder Kumar Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Anuj Mohan Adv counsel for opposite party.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Rohit Gupta filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Bengaluru. (in short the opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant ordered multiple products using his flipkart account in the first week of October. The complainant is unable to furnish the exact details of the products and their dates of order and delivery insofar his account has been blocked by the opposite party for no fault of the complainant on 16th of October. The complainant received all the products some of which did not match his requirement, size and description. This also included an order of set of 4 curtains wherein the complainant only received one curtain. The complainant tried to return these faulty products using the telephonic application but he was unable to do so as the application showed that the return and refund service has been suspended for his account. The complainant brought this fact to the knowledge of the customer care executive via a telephonic conversation on 16.10.2021 and requested them to process the return and issue refunds for all these products. The total value of the goods sought to be returned is to the tune of Rs. 37,336/-. After a few hours complainant noticed that the refund requests approved by the customer car executive on the telephonic conversation had been cancelled and his account blocked without any reason. The complainant contacted the customer care who assured him of an effective resolution by 19.10.2021. On 18.10.2021 the complainant received an email which stated that the account has been blocked because of high number of returns and he cannot proceed with the returns. The complainant replied to the said email with the issues faced by him and was told that his issue shall be resolved by 24.10.2021. The complainant received a call from the opposite party on 22nd of October wherein he was asked to send a detailed mail of his grievance and a copy of his Aadhar card and same was sent by the complainant on 22.10.2021. But the complainant was not heard by the flipkart team. The complainant raised the issue with national consumer helpline on 30.10.2021 on docket number 3065510. On their advice the complainant again sent an email to the opposite party but to no effect. All the products sought to be returned by the complainant were well within the due date of return. The return policy of the opposite party nowhere stipulates a maximum returns or more than a certain number of returns they won't be accepted and his account shall be blocked. The act of the opposite party falls within the definition of deficiency of service. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party is directed to unblock the complainant's record, proceed with the return of the products and refund the amount to the complainant. Additionally, the opposite party be directed to pay interest on the principal amount.    

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

3. The opposite party filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant himself is the wrongdoer in the present and violated the policies of the platform and suppressed the material facts from this Commission. The opposite party merely operates an online platform and all the products on the platform are sold and supplied by independent third partly sellers. Further, when the complainant raised his grievance with the opposite party the opposite party duly informed the seller about the same who intimated that they have sold and supplied the right products in intact condition to the complainant and rejected the return request of the complainant. The complainant was found to be in the violation of the policy of the platform as the system have detected an unusually high number of returns in complainant purchase history. So, the opposite party had to block the account of the complainant and same was duly intimated to the complainant. The opposite party is an electronic marketplace model E-commerce platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent and customers. These sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by different persons. The answering opposite party does not directly or indirectly sells any products on Flipkart Platform. The opposite party neither offers nor provides any assurance and/or offers pickup or refund facility to the end buyers of the product. The product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by the opposite party. The opposite party has no role in providing return, replacement, warranty of the product sold by independent seller through the Flipkart Platform of the opposite party. The opposite party merely being an online intermediary does not bear any responsibility for defect in the product that are merely purchased through the online platform of the opposite party. Further, the users of the Flipkart Platform are bound by the terms of the use enumerated on the Flipkart Platform which clearly stated that the contract of sale is a bipartite contract between the buyer and the seller only and the opposite party is not a party to it. On the Flipkart Platform it is clearly mentioned that All contractual/commercial terms are offered by an agreed to between the buyer and the seller alonge. The contractual/commercial terms include without limitation price, shipping cost, payment method, payment terms, date, period and mode of delivery, warranties related to products and services and after sale services related to products and services. Flipkart does not have any control or does not determine or advise or in any way involve itself in the offering or acceptance of such contractual/commercial terms between the buyer and the seller. It is also mentioned on the website of the opposite party that Flipkart is not responsible for any non-performance or breach of any contract entered into between buyers and sellers. The opposite party has not charged any amount from the complainant for using his online platform. 

4. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant purchased the products through the online platform of the opposite party and not from it. Further on investigation in the present matter it was found that complainant is in violation of the policy of the platform as the system has detected an unusually high number of returns in complainant purchase history. So, in order to protect the interest of the platform the opposite party had to block the account of the complainant and same was duly intimated to the complainant. The complainant himself is the wrongdoer in the present complaint. The products in the instant matter have been sold and supplied by independent third party sells to the complainant who have supplied the same through independent third party logistics service providers. When the complainant raised his grievance with the opposite party the opposite party duly informed the seller but he intimated that they have sold and supplied the right products in intact condition to the complainant and rejected the return request of the complainant and not the opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Lastly, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

5. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence copy of screen short Ex.C-1, copy of details or the product to be returned and mode of payment Ex.C-2, copy of email Ex.C-3, copies of emails sent by the complainant to the opposite party Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, copy of trasscript of the communication with the National Consumer Helpline Ex.C-6, copy of return policy Ex.C-7, affidavit of complainant  Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence. 

6. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence copy of press note issued by DIPP Ex.OP-1, copy of terms of use for using online portal Ex.OP-2, affidavit of Sheetal Tiwari Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the complainant. 

8. The main dispute in the present complaint is that the opposite party blocked the Flipkart Account of the complainant and not returned the products which the complainant wants to return and also not refund the amount of these products to the complainant. 

9. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant ordered various products in the month of October and when he tried to manage his account for return some of the product he found that his account has been blocked by the opposite party on 16th of October. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that complainant brought this fact to the knowledge of the Customer Care Executive who approved his refund request but after some time his refund request cancelled. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that on 18.10.2021 complainant received an email that the account has been blocked because high number of returns and he cannot proceed with the returns and his issue shall be resolved by 24.10.2021 but of no use. Even the complainant sent a detailed email and his Aadhaar Card but even then his account has not been unblocked as promised. 

10. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant himself violated the policies of the opposite party as the system has detected an unusually high number of returns in complainant purchase history so the opposite party has to block the account of the complainant which was duly intimated to him. He further argued that when complainant raised the issue the opposite party duly informed the seller who rejected the return request of the complainant on the ground that he supplied the right products in intact condition to the complainant. 

11. We have perused all the documents on the file very carefully. The opposite party deposed in the affidavit of Sheetal Tiwari Ex.OP-3 and also admitted in the written version that on investigation in the present matter it was found that complainant is in violation of the policy of the platform as the system has detected an unusually high number of returns in complainant purchase history so in order to protect the interest of platform the opposite party blocked the account of the complainant and same was intimated to the complainant. But the opposite party has not filed any document or list of products which were returned by the complainant, to prove that the complainant returned high number of products after purchase to the opposite party. Further, the opposite party also not mentioned the total amount of return products and number of return transactions of the complainant to justify their stand of blocking the account of the complainant. 

12. On the other hand the complainant filed list of products to be returned to the opposite party Ex.C-2 amounting to Rs. 37,366/-. He also filed the return policy Ex.C-7 of the opposite party. We have perused the list of return products and return policy Ex.C-7 of the opposite party and found that the complainant return all the products as per the return policy Ex.C-7 of the opposite party and no product is return beyond the return policy Ex.C-7 of the complainant. So, the opposite party must return these products and refund the amount to the complainant.

13. In this way, as the opposite party blocked the account of the complainant without any basis and also not return the products from the complainant which are within the return policy Ex.C-7 of the opposite party is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. 

14. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to unblock the account of the complainant and opposite party further directed to take back the products in question from the complainant and then refund the cost of the products to the complainant which will return by the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to its records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        23rd Day of January 2023 

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member