DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/138/2020

Date of Institution : 06.08.2020

Date of Decision : 22.10.2021

Renu Bala aged about 34 years wife of Janak Raj, resident of Ward No. 9, Near Baba Mathh, Tapa Mandi, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala (Punjab). …Complainant

Versus

1. Flipkart India Registered Office Address: Flipkart India Private Limited, Registered Office: Buildings Alyssa, Begonia and Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru-560103, Karnataka, India, through its Chief Executive Officer/Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

2. Paytm India, Corporate/Registered Office Address: Paytm India, Paytm Headquarter B-121, Sector 5, Noida-201301 India, through its Chief Executive Officer/Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

…Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act 2019

Present: Sh. PK Singla counsel for complainant.

Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. Nitin Bansal counsel for opposite party No. 2. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Renu Bala filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (as amended up to date) against Flipkart India Registered Office, Bengaluri and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant has installed both the applications of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in her mobile number 98769-51951 and availed the services of both the opposite parties. 

3. It is further alleged that on 29.10.2019 opposite party No. 1 started a sale for their customers in the name of Flipfestive Sale and offered discount on many products. The complainant also see one offer on the mobile of Samsung amounting to Rs. 60,000/- which after discount was of Rs. 2,999/-. So, she want to get huge benefit and selected the said mobile and paid the payment to the opposite party No. 1 from her account with the opposite party No.2. Further, after payment of Rs. 2,999/- to the opposite party No. 1 they issued one order ID 201910292238490044 at 10.30 PM and opposite party No. 2 issued one wallet transaction ID 27155831172 of the deducted amount on the same day and time. But she astonished to see the order review that there was no order placed with opposite party No. 1 and amount of Rs. 2,999/- was deducted from the account of the complainant with the opposite party No. 2. The complainant requested the opposite parties many times but no response is give by them to the complainant and on 21.7.2020 opposite parties flatly refused to accept the request of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to deliver the mobile or return the deducted amount of Rs. 2,999/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 29.10.2019 till realization. 

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and   harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 filed written reply taking preliminary submissions that complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Commission and not approached with clean hands. Further, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as she has not paid any consideration to the opposite party No. 1. Further, there is no privity of contract between the parties. The opposite party No. 1 is not involved in sale of any product to the end customer as they are wholesaler and is only engaged in B2B sales. The complainant purchased the product from one online seller which appears to be flipkart.com owned and operated by a separate entity incorporated under the Companies Act under the name of Flipkart Internet Private Limited which is distinct and separate from opposite party No. 1. There is no dispute between the complainant and the opposite party No. 1 so complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No. 1. 

5. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has not availed the services of the opposite party No. 1 and is not a consumer of answering opposite party. The opposite party No. 1 has not received any payment from the complainant and order was not placed through the platform of answering opposite party, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1. Further, the complainant never approached the opposite party No. 1 for any alleged grievance. The opposite party No. 1 not at all involved in the entire transaction and has no responsibility for delivery of the product to the complainant. Lastly, they prayed for the dismissal of present complaint with costs qua the answering opposite party. 

6. The opposite party No. 2 also filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant on the pretext that complainant herself has made a payment of Rs. 2,999/- to the opposite party No. 1 through Paytm wallet for purchasing a product. The opposite party No. 2 successfully processed the said transaction and payment has been made to the opposite party No. 1. The complainant agreed to avail wallet services of the opposite party No. 2 after accepting applicable terms and conditions based on existing regulatory guidelines. Further, as per records of opposite party said transaction has been successfully processed by the opposite party No. 2. As per record of opposite party No. 2 the complainant earlier approached opposite party No. 2 on 30.10.2019 regarding issue in respect of said transaction and during the review of transactions of complainant's Paytm Wallet it has been revealed that the complainant herself transferred the amount of Rs. 2,999/- vide transaction ID 27155831172 from Paytm Wallet and same has been credited to the opposite party No. 2 merchant namely Maa Samay Communication Display Name Flipfestive Sale and it has been duly informed to the complainant vide email dated 1.11.2019. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party No. 2 and there exists no liability on the part of opposite party No. 2 in respect of the said transaction. Lastly, the opposite party No. 2 also prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint. 

7. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C-2, copy of Paytm Account slip Ex.C-3, copy of order ID slip Ex.C-4, copies of money paid slip Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6, copy of order success slip Ex.C-7, copy of account slip Ex.C-8, copy of brochure Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence. 

8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1  tendered in evidence affidavit of Sheetal Tiwari Ex.OP-1/1, copy of certificate of registration Ex.OP-1/2 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 2 also tendered in evidence affidavit of Sarthak Kapila Ex.OP-2/1, copy of authority letter Ex.OP-2/2, copy of email Ex.OP-2/3, copy of transaction Ex.OP-2/4 and closed the evidence. 

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. 

10. The complainant tendered in her evidence Ex.C-4 vide which it is cleared that the amount of Rs. 2,999/- was paid successfully to Flipfestive Sale vide Order ID 20191029 2238490044 on 29.10.2019. But from the said document it is not established on the file that the said payment was made to opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 submitted in their written version that the complainant has not availed the services of the opposite party No.1, so she is not a consumer of the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 also submitted in their written version that the opposite party No. 1 has not received any payment from the complainant and order was not placed through the platform of the opposite party No. 1. 

11. The opposite party No. 2 also mentioned in their written version that the complainant herself transferred the amount of Rs. 2,999/- vide transaction ID 27155831172 from Paytm Wallet and same has been credited to opposite party No. 2 merchant namely “Maa Samay Communication” Display Name: Flipfestive Sale. 

12. The complainant failed to produce any evidence to prove that the complainant had made the payment to the opposite party No. 1. The documents tendered by the complainant in her evidence are not supported the case of the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 is not liable for any claim as the complainant agreed to avail Wallet service of the opposite party No. 2 after accepting the applicable terms and conditions based on existing regulatory guidelines. Moreover, the complainant submitted in her complaint that she had ordered a product to the opposite party No. 1. 

13. In this way, the complainant is failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of both the opposite parties. 

14. In view of above discussion, we feel that there is no merit in the present complaint and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        22nd Day of October 2021

 

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member