Haryana

Ambala

CC/113/2024

ADITYA ARYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

BHAWANA GARG

24 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	113 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	01.05.2024
Date of decision	:	24.09.2024

 

Aditya Arya son of Anupam Arya aged about 34 years resident of 402-A Civil Line Jail Road Ambala City. M. No. 9996699920

…. Complainant

                                                                            Versus

1. Flipkart India Private Limited through its authorised person office at Building Alyssa, Begonia and Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer ring road Devarabesanahalli Village, Bengaluru, Karnataka.
2. MPS Telecom Retail Private Limited through its authorised person office at No.B1 632, Second and Third floor, Co Offiz Co-working space, Jankpuri, Delhi.

.…. Opposite Parties

 Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

         Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Pranshu Singhal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    OPs already ex parte.            

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

i) To refund the amount of Rs.23,869/- alongwith interest @24% p.a.

ii) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

iii) To pay Rs.8000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are the complainant was in a need of a desktop internal solid state drive (SSD) for his use and in pursuance of the same had ordered a WD blue 4 TB desktop internal Solid state drive SSD(WD5400T2B0A) from the official website of the OP No.1 on 29th Feb 2024 vide order ID OD330603936891079100 for a sum of Rs.23,869/- which was paid by the complainant through UPI via his Paytm app having UPI reference number 406010603443 on 29th Feb 2024. The order of the complainant was confirmed by the OP No.1 on the same date and the product was sold by OP No.2 and the invoice of the SSD which was ordered by the complainant was issued by the OP No.1 on the even date. As per the tracking record the order of the complainant, the product was to be delivered by the OP No.1 within 7 to 10 days of the order. He received the product i.e. WD 4 TB desktop internal SSD in the company packed box on 6th March 2024 and as per the company policy it was an open box delivery and the delivery boy opened the box and showed only the contents of the box to the complainant and the complainant had only checked the contents of the box and could not be able to check the SSD by connecting the same to his computer. The complainant after the receipt of the internal SSD had connected the same to his laptop but to the utter surprise of the complainant the total storage of the SSD was only 128 GB (119gb usable) which is much less then what was ordered by the complainant i.e. 4 TB (terabyte) and the complainant also noticed that the weight of the SSD which was delivered to him was very less which created a doubt in the mind of the complainant that he is being defrauded/cheated by the OPs and wrong/sub- standard product of much less value than the product ordered by the complainant was delivered. The complainant had immediately on the same day raised a return request of the defective SSD on the webpage of the  OP No.1 which was delivered to the complainant on 6th March 2024 and the complainant had received a confirmation email from the  OP No.1 that the return request has been successfully received. On 7th March 2024 the complainant received an email from the  OP No.1 regarding the return request raised by the complainant and the  OP No.1 had asked the complainant to upload the images of the defective products in the format mentioned therein and the complainant in response of the email received by him had uploaded the images of the defective products being received by him with packaging as per the instructions of the OP No.1 but even after the receipt of the images uploaded by the complainant as per the instructions the return request of the complainant had been denied without stating any plausible reason and on 8th March 2024 the  OP No.1 had closed the return request raised by the complainant by stating that the product was being intact. The complainant is regularly approaching the OP No.1 telephonically to get his complaint redressed either by replacing the product or by refunding the amount which was being paid by the complainant at the time of placing the order but the OP No.1 was adamant and has not refunded a single penny to the complainant and even refuse to replace the product, purchased by the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, none has appeared on behalf of the OPs before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.07.2024.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the first instance supplying wrong product and thereafter, despite making requests by the complainant, by neither replacing the product in question nor refunding the price of the same, the OPs have committed deficiency in providing service.  
7.           It is coming out from Tax Invoice dated 29.02.2024, Annexure C-2 that the complainant has purchased WD WD Blue 4TB Desktop Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) (WDS400T2B0A) from OP No.2 for an amount of Rs.23,869/-, which was delivered by OP No.1 at his premises. It is coming out from email dated 06.03.2024, Annexure C-4, that the complainant requested the OPs for return of the said product, on the ground that the total storage of the said SSD was only 128 GB (119 gb usable), which was much less than what was ordered by the complainant and as such it was not compatible to his desktop. Thereafter also, lot of emails, Annexure C-5 to C-9 for the period from 07.03.2024 to 11.03.2024 were exchanged between the parties, wherein the complainant kept on providing all the details whatever were sought by OP No.2 qua the said product, yet, there is nothing on record that the grievance of the complainant was redressed by the OPs. It is the definite case of the complainant that product in question is of no use, as the SSD of the same was only 128 GB (119 gb usable) instead of 4 TB. It is significant to mention here that, as stated above, notice of this complaint was sent to the OPs seeking their version, yet, nobody appeared on their behalf, despite service,  as a result whereof, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.07.2024. This act of the OPs draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the OPs shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant went unrebutted & uncontroverted. Facing with this situation, we have no reason to disbelieve the contention of the complainant, thus, we have no hesitation to hold that by neither replacing the product in question with the correct product nor refunding the price of the same, OP No.2 has committed deficiency in providing service. Since, the OP No.1 has only delivered the product in question, which has no connection whatsoever with the contents of the same, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against it, is liable to be dismissed.  
8.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.1 and allow the same against OP No.2 and direct it, in the following manner:- 
   1. To refund the amount of Rs.23,869/- alongwith interest @6% p.a. from 29.02.2024, i.e the date of purchase, till its realization.
   2. To pay Rs.3,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
   3. To pay Rs.2,000/-, as litigation expenses.

                  The OP No.2 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OP No.2 shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization.

                   Complainant is also directed to deliver/return the SSD in question to the OP No.2 (if not delivered/returned till yet), on receipt of the awarded amount, from the OP No.2.

                   Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 24.09.2024

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President