| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/421/21 Date of Institution:- 23.12.2021 IN THE MATTER OF: Order Reserved on:- 03.09.2024 Date of Decision:- 19.09.2024 Lalit Kumar S/o ShriOmpal Singh, Aged About 24 years R/o 258A/1, Ajay Park, Naya Bazar Najafgarh, Delhi - 110043 .….. Complainant VERSUS - Flipkart
Building Alyssa, Begonia & Clover Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru, Banglore, Karnataka – 560103 - BoAT
Imagine Marketing Private Limited E-Wing, Unit – 505, Corporate Avenue Opp. Solitaire Park, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai, Maharashtra –400093.…..Opposite Party Per Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member - The Complainant purchased an AIRDOPES 131 Bluetooth headset manufactured by OP-2 through OP-1, an online portal, paying a sum of Rs.1299/-. An invoice dated 04.11.2021 was issued to the Complainant (Annexure-C1) for the said purchase. The Complainant states that he received his order on 10.11.2021, and since he was travelling, he could only open the box on 11.11.2021. On opening the box, he was surprised to find wired headphones instead of the Bluetooth headphones he had ordered. The Complainant has annexed the pictures of the headset as Annexure-C2.
- The Complainant immediately raised a return request to OP-1 but his request was denied by OP-1 on 15.11.2021. OP-1 denied his return request because it had been generated after 48 hours of receipt of the order. He raised another return request on 15.11.2021, which was also denied on 17.11.2021. Annexure-C3 is a copy of the messages exchanged between the Complainant and OP-1.
- The Complainant contacted the customer care of OP-2; however, his request to return the wrong product delivered due to their mistake was also denied. Unable to exchange the headset with the one he had ordered from the O.P.s or get his money refunded, the Complainant filed the present complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He has prayed for a refund of the consideration amount of Rs.1299/- along with interest @18% from the date of payment, i.e. 04.11.2021 till realisation, Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by him. He also requests directions to the O.P.s to deposit Rs.10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund.
- Notice was issued to OP-1 and 2 to file their Reply. OP-1 filed their Reply stating therein that OP-1 operates as an online platform on which independent third-party sellers list and sell their products. The products ordered by the customers are sold and supplied by these independent sellers through third-party logistics service providers. Hence, OP-1 has no role in the transaction between the Complainant and the seller.
- OP-1 clarifies that the product in question was purchased from a third-party seller, "Shreyash Retail Pvt. Ltd." which is evident from the copy of the tax invoice annexed by the Complainant with this complaint. The product was thereafter supplied to the Complainant through the seller's logistic service provider.
- Further, OP-1, on raising the Complainant's grievance with the seller, confirmed that the seller had delivered the ordered product in intact condition to the Complainant. The seller himself rejected the return request raised by the Complainant.
- Moreover, despite requesting the Complainant to share his I.D. details to investigate the matter further, the Complainant did not do so. Hence, no cause of action arose in favour of OP-1 as OP-1 is only an online marketplace, an e-commerce entity separate from the sellers. OP-1 thus prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte when the Complainant filed proof of adequate service vide order dated 23.09.2022.
- The Complainant filed his rejoinder and affidavit in evidence, reiterating what he has stated in his complaint. OP-1 filed the affidavit in evidence of Ms. Sanchi Chhabra, AR of OP-1, who also repeated the averments as made in the Reply. Both parties filed their written arguments, and we have heard the Ld. Counsel of the Complainant. Ld. Proxy Counsel for OP-1 stated that the case may be decided based on the material on record. OP-2 is ex-parte.
- We have carefully reviewed the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and have also perused the documents filed by the contesting parties.
- We find that the Complainant purchased a Bluetooth headset, the AIRDOPES 131, manufactured by OP-2. He paid the consideration amount of Rs.1299/- through OP-1, the online portal through which the Complainant ordered the product in question on 04.11.2021. Annexure-C1 is a copy of the invoice issued to the Complainant.
- After receiving the product ordered by him on 10.11.2021, the Complainant opened the box containing the Bluetooth headset on 11.11.2021 and found that the product received by him was not the same as the one he had ordered as he had received wired headphones instead of Bluetooth headphones (Annexure-C2).
- The Complainant states that he immediately raised a return request to OP-1 on the same day, i.e. 11.11.2021. His request was denied by OP-1 on 15.11.2021 based on the reason that the Complainant had raised a return request after 48 hours had lapsed which was against the terms and conditions of the return of the product.
- The Complainant also contacted OP-2 for a return/refund of the product to no avail. OP-1 contested the complaint, stating that as an intermediatory, they merely operate an online platform. The seller of the products sends the products purchased by the customers through OP-1 via third-party service providers. Hence, they have no role in the receipt/delivery or refund of the products sold on their website.
- Further, OP-1 stated that the return request was rejected by the seller from whom the Complainant purchased the product, and despite asking for the Complainant's I.D. details to investigate his claim, the Complainant did not provide the same. Hence, OP-1 is not liable for any deficiency in service in the instant complaint.
- A bare perusal of Annexure-C3, which are the messages received from OP-1, clarifies that, admittedly, the order placed by the Complainant for AIRDOPES 131 Bluetooth was delivered on 10.11.2021. OP-1 has also attached the link to track the order in their message. On page No.13 on 11.11.2021 at 7:51 PM, OP-1 sent another message regarding the tracking of the order placed by the Complainant being disabled and a return request received by them for the order ID OD123287748506115000. OP-1 sought time to update the Complainant regarding the return status and provided a link to check the return status on the same day. This message sent by OP-1 falsifies the O.P.'s statement that the Complainant did not issue a return request for his product within 48 hours of receipt of the ordered product.
- Further, OP-1 has mentioned that they inquired from the seller regarding the Complainant's wrongly delivered product, which, as per
OP-1, the seller denied. However, no communication/document evidence or report has been filed by OP-1 to support their averment of any investigation they conducted towards the grievance of the Complainant on record for reasons best known to them.
- OP-1 has further claimed that the Complainant did not send his customer I.D. even though they requested him to do so. However, the customer's I.D. is reflected in the bill generated by OP-1. Neither OP-1 filed any communication regarding this bald statement with the Complainant on record.
- So far as their claim that an intermediarycannot be held liable for the delivery of a wrong product,reliance is placed on-
- R.P. No.2544 of 2023Goibibo Com vsAmrit Pal Jaiswal&Orsdated07.08 2024passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, wherein it is held-
- . The appellant-Goibibo may be an intermediary but they are also a commission agent and they are not giving their services as charity. They definitely charge Commission from the party from whom they booked the tickets and that Commission goes to the appellant Goibibo only after provided relevant services to the consumers. There is nothing on the record that the appellant-Goibibo is doing charity as an intermediary for the booking of the tickets, booked through online portal and in such an eventuality, the appellant Goibibo cannot escape from their responsibility in case bookings are cancelled and they are bound to refund of the amount received by them from the consumers.
8. State Commission has given a well reasoned order and we are in agreement with its observations and findings. There are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioner herein. - M/s Rediff.com India Limited vs. Urmil Manjuldated 11.04.2013 passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.
9. We find that the view taken by the fora below is completely in line with the admitted position of the RP/OP. In para 2 of its written response before the District Forum, it is clearly stated that the respondent company is engaged in business of providing services through its internet portal (www.rediff.com) to interested buyers and sellers by acting as a means of communication between them and bringing into existence contracts of sale and purchase of movable goods. If this is the declared business interest of the RP/OP it cannot be permitted to claim that it is providing purely gratuitous service to its customers, without any consideration. It is certainly not the case of RP/OP that it is a charitable organisation involved in e-commerce, with no business returns for itself. We therefore, reject the contention of the revision petitioner that the respondent/Complainant is not a consumer of the revision petitioner within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. - In light of the judgment mentioned above by the Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission the discussion above we find OP-1 guilty of deficiency in service for not addressing the grievance of the Complainant satisfactorily.OP-2 is ex-parte and chose not to appear before this Commission. Hence, we find no reason to disbelieve the Complainant'sunrebutted and sworn testimony qua OP-2.
- Therefore, allowing the complaint, we direct OP-1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment, inclusive of litigation costs.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 19.09.2024.
| |
