Orissa

Cuttak

CC/146/2021

Pratyasha Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart E-commerce - Opp.Party(s)

P K Kanungo & associates

07 Jul 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                C.C.No.146/2021

Pratyasha Mohanty,

D/O:Birendra Nath Mohanty,

At/Pr. W/o: Sambit Kanungo

At:Canal Road,Near impress Dine Restaurant,

P.O/PS:Salipur,Dist:Cuttack,Odisha.,

Mobile No.8280317770

Mail ID.pratyashamohanty999@gmail.com.                                      ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.       Head of Customer Service,Flipkart E-Commerce

Flipkart Internet Private Limited,

Buildings Alyssa,Begonia & Cloe Embassy Tech Village,

Outer Ring Road,Devarabeesanahalli Village,

Bengaluru-560103,Karnataka,India.

 

2.      Grievance Officer,

       Flipkart Internet Private Limited,

Buildings Alyssa,Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village,

Outer Ring Road,Devarabeesanahalli Village,

Bengaluru-560103,Karnataka,India.

 

3.        Head of Eshopbox E-Commermce Private Limited,

Global Complex,Godown No.A/6,

Village Kukse,Borivalli,Near Shangrila Resort,

Taluk Thane,Bhiwandi-421302,

Maharashtra,India...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    09.09.2021

Date of Order:  07.07.2022

 

For the complainant         :  Mr. P.K.Kanungo,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1 & 2         :   Mr. S.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.  

For O.Ps No. 3                     :                       None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                                                          

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had placed order for one (Raymond Checkered Single Breasted Formal Men Blazer,Size-42) with 10 Days Return Policy and the consideration amount of Rs.4,999/- was paid by her. After getting the delivery of the package through the O.Ps on 19.7.21 when she found that the blazer delivered was completely different from the one she had indented in style and colour and since because the return policy was opened upto 29.7.21; on 20.7.21 she preferred to initiate the return process bearing Return/Refund ID:12102236258630493323 but her request was rejected with a note “Return Update: Sorry, your return request for Raymond Checkered Sing... cannot be fulfilled by the seller as the courier service provider has confirmed the delivery of the order with the product being intact.”  Again she preferred another return request on the same day i.e. on 21.7.21 bearing Return/Refund ID:12202236905029134088 but in the similar manner her return request had turned down with the same note on 22.7.21.  She had to contact with the customer care on each occasion and had tried for the third time with her Return/Refund ID;12202237300991085872 dt.22.7.21 but the same was also rejected with same note.  When she called the Customer Care Team, she was answered that her return request has been forwarded to the backend team which would be reserved by 2.45 p.m on 26.7.21 and again such resolution time was extended upto 4.30 p.m of 27.7.21 but finally on 27.7.21 the complainant got a reply with endorsement “We would like to let you know that your recent request has been concealed as our systems have detected on unusually high number of returns in your purchase history.  This would also mean that you will no longer be able to login to your Flipkart account”.  Being aggrieved, the complainant raise her grievance on Consumer Helpline Website bearing No.2855152 on 28.7.21.  But she was later advised to seek shelter in the court of law.  The complainant was then forced to send a pleader’s notice through registered post to the Customer Service and Grievance Officer of Flipkart E.Commerce on 9.8.21 b but when the O.Ps did not pay any heed, she had to take shelter of the court of law and had filed this case seeking return of value of the Blazer to the tune of Rs.4,999/- along with a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards her mental agony and harassment and she has also prayed for any favourable order as found fit and proper.

2.         Out of three O.Ps, O.P No.3 having not contested this case has been set exparte vide order dt.11.4.22.  However, O.Ps No,.1 & 2 have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly.  According to the written version of the O.Ps 1 & 2, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  O.Ps 1 & 2 through their written version have submitted that the issue has been resolved and the refund of Rs.4,999/- against the alleged cost of the product has already been provided to the complainant vide reference no.391260465128285 dt.20.9.21.  Thus there is no cause of action and the present case is liable to be dismissed.  It is stated in the written version that O.P No.1 is an Online Market Place E.Commerce Entity and it is urged in the written version that the seller is responsible for the defective goods for the warranty, guarantee of the goods etc.  Thus it is urged that the Flipkart is not responsible for any non-performance or breach of any contract in between the buyer and the seller.  Thus it is prayed therein to dismiss the case with cost.

            Either sides have filed copies of documents in support of their case.

3.         From the contentions of the complaint petition and that of the written version, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the case as filed by the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Issue No.2.

            Out of the three issues, issue no.2 being the most vital issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case. 

            It is not in dispute that the complainant had indented a blazer but had received another blazer which was not indented by her.  The copies of the documents as annexed by the complainant to her complaint petition, when perused, it is noticed that the documentary evidence provides ample corroboration to the contents of the complainant as made by her in her complaint petition.  It is not understood as to when there was 10 days return policy available for the buyer, when the product was not in consonance with the one as desired by the buyer-complainant, what had prevented her in availing the 10 days return policy to the said buyer-complainant and even if she had tried thrice and had touched all the vital persons of the O.P side in order to avail the return policy she could not succeed.  That apart, as per the written version of the O.Ps 1 & 2 they alleged therein that they have refunded the amount to the tune of Rs.4,999/- to the complainant but there is no scrap of paper in order to support such plea as taken by the O.Ps here in this case.  Thus, it appears that the O.Ps are not with clean hands and are rather trying to wriggle out from the responsibilities and the quoted terms and conditions of the “10 Days Return Policy”.  Thus, this Commission is of a considerate view here in this case that definitely there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps by terminating the repeated return request as made promptly by the complainant who could notice that the blazer delivered to her was not as per the specifications and colour desired and ordered by her.  This issue is thus answered against the O.Ps.

 

Issues No.1 & 3.

            From the above discussions, this Commission is of a view that definitely the case as filed by the complainant is maintainable and she is entitled to the claims as made by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against O.Ps No.1 & 2 and exparte against O.P No.3.  All the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable and the plea as taken by the O.Ps 1 & 2 does not hold good here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to immediately repay the complainant the value of the blazer to the tune of Rs.4,999/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from 19.7.21 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a compensation to total of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards her mental agony and harassment and also towards litigation costs incurred by her unnecessarily due to the latches of the erring O.Ps.  This order is to be carried out within a month hence.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 7^th day of July,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                                 Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member