West Bengal

Bankura

CC/88/2023

Souvik Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 Jul 2024

ORDER

   IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No.88/2023

Date of Filing:  18/09/2023

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                            Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.

For the Complainant: Self                     

For the O.P.: Ld. Advocate Sayantan Chowdhury

 

Complainant:

Souvik Ghosh,Lokepur, near Alolika Nursing Home,Bankura ,W.B.Pin-722102,Mob-9531500673

Opposite Party:

FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, Vashnavi Summit , Ground Floor,80Feet RD,3^rd Block ,Vill/Tehsil/Dist-Koramangala,Industrial Layout, Bangalore,Karnataka,560034.                                                                          

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT 

                                                                                                                                                         

Order No.11

Dated:11-07-2024

Complainant is present in person.

O.P. files hazira through Advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument / written argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder.

The Complainant’s case is that he purchased a Smart Watch on 06/08/2023 on online platform from O.P./FLIPKART (I) Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.1,299/- and got it delivered on 08/08/2023 but found technical defect to use the product but the O.P. did not entertain replacement request of the Complainant nor returned the price of the Smart Watch. Hence this case.

The O.P. contested the case by filing a written version contending inter alia on law point that they being the intermediary has no product liability and as such the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Contd…..p/2

 

Page: 2

-: Decision with reasons:-

Having regard to the facts of the case, contention, submission and documents on both sides   the Commission finds that the Smart Watch is technically defective as the Complainant cannot use the same. Though O.P. is intermediary but a privity of contract exists between them and the Seller under the relevant E-commerce Rules, 2020 and as such O.P. cannot avoid their liability to compensate the loss for delivery of such defective product. The Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.                                                                                                                                   

 

Hence it is ordered…….

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest but without cost.

O.P. is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.1,299/- with cost of Rs.701/- within a month from this date in default law will take its own course and on receipt of the decretal amount the Complainant will hand over the defective Smart Watch to the O.P. or any authorized person.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Order free of cost.

 

____________________                                 _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT                             HON’BLE MEMBER