By. Sri. A. S. Subhagan, Member:-

            This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

            2.  Facts of the case in brief:-  The son of the Complainant had ordered a pigeon Healthy Fry Air fryer 4.2 L-1200W Air Fryer product through Flipkart online digital marketing on 28.09.2023 for a price of Rs.3,349/-.  They had offered two years warranty also.  The Complainant had received the product within one week of the booking.  When the Complainant unwrapped the product and tried to switch on the product, it did not work that it was damaged.  On informing, the representative of the Company came to the residence of the Complainant and repaired the product.  But again it stopped working.  Hence the Complainant demanded to replace the useless product.  But they denied the demand.

            3.  Hence the Complainant has approached the Commission with prayers to direct the Opposite Party to refund Rs.3,349/- with 12% interest being the price of the product, to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of this complaint.

            4.  On getting summons, Opposite Party No.1 appeared before the Commission and filed version.  But Opposite Party No.2 and 3 were called absent and hence, they were set ex-parte.

            5. Contents of version filed by Opposite Party No.1, in brief:-  Flipkart India Private Limited, that is Opposite Party No.1, has not sold any product to the Complainant.  The Opposite Party No.1 has not provided any platform to the Complainant for placing order for the product in issue.  So, Opposite Party No.1 is wrongly arrayed as party in the complaint.  Opposite Party No.1 is a wholesaler and not sell products in retail.  Opposite Party No.1 is not selling any product to the end customer.  So the Complainant is not a consumer. Flipkart.com serves as platform for the sellers and buyers to enter into transactions.  So there is no privity of contract with Opposite Party No.1 and the Complainant.  So, all the allegations against Opposite Party No.1 are denied.  The complaint is frivolous, vexatious and devoid of any merits and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

            6.  In spite of repeated postings, on several occasions the Complainant neither appeared before the Commission nor represented, filed affidavit, marked any documents, adduced any oral evidence and argued his case.  Hence we are of the view that the complaint is devoid of any merit as the Complainant has failed to prove his case.

            7.  Opposite Party No.1 filed version, had no oral evidence but filed detailed note of arguments.  Hence Commission is of the opinion to dismiss the complaint, on merit.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 16^th day of December 2024.

Date of Filing:- 19.01.2024.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-