Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/244

Mr.Anil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart india Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

complaint in person

10 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 244 dated 09.06.2022.                                                        Date of decision: 10.10.2022.

Mr. Anil Kumar, Registered address: 1766/1, St. No.2, Near Durga Mata Mandir, Backside Vishal Mega Mart, Near PAU Gate No.3, Maharaj Nagar, Ludhiana. Contact No.9465647170. Email-

Flipkart India Private Limited having registered office at: Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clover, Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village Bengaluru Bangalore KA 560103 IN.                                                                                                           …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 34 (1) 34(2) (d), 35, 36 and 39 of the    Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                None has been appearing in this case on behalf of the complainant since 10.08.2022.

2.                We have gone through the record. It has been claimed in the complaint that the complainant bought Samsung Galaxy S41 Smart phone, the cost price of which was Rs.16,500/- on the website of the OP. The complainant paid Rs.11,500/- claiming a discount of Rs.4900/-. However, the OP locked the complainant’s mobile without any intimation saying that the actual price of the phone was Rs.16,500/- and the complainant was required to pay the remaining amount of Rs.4900/- for unlocking of the phone. In fact, the phone was bought under Smart Upgrade Plan about which the complainant had no knowledge nor any message or mail was sent by the OP. The complainant agreed to pay the amount of Rs.4900/- but despite that the OP did not do the needful. As a result, the complainant suffered lot of harassment and inconvenience as the children of the complainant had to appear in online exam using the mobile and due to the fact that the mobile was not unlocked, the same could not be used for any purpose. In the end, it has been requested that the OP be directed to give a proper service for unlocking the same and be also made to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with suitable litigation expenses.

3.                Along with the complaint, the complainant placed on record a copy of legal notice sent to the OP on 25.02.2022, statement of account of Bajaj Finserv of some Shiv Kumar, copy of text message purportedly sent by the OP, payment schedule issued by Bajaj Finserv.

4.                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant Anil Kumar whereas the statement of account and repayment schedule of Bajaj Finserv is in the name of Shiv Kumar and not the complainant. The original bill vide which the mobile was purchased by the complainant has not been placed on record. In the text message, purportedly sent by the OP, it is clearly stated that the device is locked as the payment is overdue and the devise would e unlocked within two hours after of the payment.  The complainant has neither claimed in the complaint that he made the remaining payment of Rs.4900/- nor has produced on record any receipt of having paid the remaining amount of Rs.4900/-. The complainant has also not relied upon any document showing the total cost of the mobile or that he was entitled to purchase it for a sum of Rs.11,500/- on a discount of Rs.4900/-. Therefore, in our considered view, no case for deficiency of service on the part of the OP is made out. Even otherwise, the OP being an e-commerce company is only an intermediary which facilitates the online sale of the goods between the customer and the manufacturer/seller of the product. Since the complainant has not placed on record original or copy of the bill vide which the product was purchased, it cannot be ascertained as to exactly what was the sale price of the mobile. Therefore, looking the case from any angle, no case of deficiency of service is made out against the OP.   

5.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is summarily dismissed being devoid of any merit. Copies of order be supplied to complainant free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Anil Kumar Vs Flipkart                                        CC/22/244

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   None turned up for the complainant today also. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 10.08.2022.

                   Record perused. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is summarily dismissed being devoid of any merit. Copies of order be supplied to complainant free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room but after registering the same.       

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.