Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/682/2014

Atul Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart india - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/682/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	15/10/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	10/03/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Atul Malhotra, R/o #1279 (Ground Floor), Sector 41-B, Chandigarh.

……… Complainant

Vs

 

Flipkart India, National Highway 8, Mahipalpur Village, Mahipalpur, New Delhi, through its Managing Director/ Director.

…… Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:    SH.P.L. AHUJA              PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

 

Present:      Sh. Vinay Kumar Malhotra, Authorized Agent for Complainant.

            Sh. Amit Mahajan, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

1.      Briefly stated, on noticing discount of 94% on LAVA mobiles on Flipkart India, on 13.09.2014, the Complainant had ordered one LAVA Iris XI for Rs.400/- through netbanking. The product was to be delivered on 22.09.2014. It has been averred that on 15.09.2014, the Complainant was informed that due to high demand for the aforesaid item and in order to provide all customers an equal opportunity to avail the said deal, the Opposite Party had to cancel the order and the amount of Rs.400/- would be refunded back to him in his bank account. Even though the said amount was credited to the account of the Complainant, yet he wanted the product ordered by him on 13.9.2014 and hence filed the instant Complaint before this Forum.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and Opposite Party and therefore, the Complaint is not maintainable. It has been asserted that the answering Opposite Party is a Wholesaler and is involved in B2B sale. The Complainant has purchased the product from one online seller and the contract of sale is only between the Seller and the Complainant and hence the answering Opposite Party cannot be held liable for any liability owning to such contract. Denying all other allegations, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the Authorized Agent of the Complainant and learned Counsel for the Opposite Party and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Opposite Party.  

 

6.      It is evident from an e-mail dated 13.9.2014 at page no.3 of the Complaint that in response to the offer made by the Opposite Party regarding Lava Iris X1 for Rs.400/-, the Complainant ordered the same and paid Rs.400/- through net-banking to the Opposite Party. However, as per e-mail dated 15.9.2014 at page no.4 of the Complaint, the order in question was cancelled by the Opposite Party on account of the high demand of the item in question. As per the Complainant, the amount of Rs.400/- was refunded back to him in his bank account. The Complainant has filed the present Complaint to get the ordered product, as he never cancelled the same from his side.

 

7.      The stand taken by the Opposite Party is that the present Complaint is bad for non-joinder of the Seller as a necessary party. In our opinion the entire deal/communication was between the Complainant and the Opposite Party alone. Vide e-mail dated 13.9.2014 (at pg.no.3 of the Complaint), the Opposite Party has conveyed its thanks to the Complainant for placing the order in question and further informed him that he could check the status of his order on Flipkart.com which is e-mail address of Opposite Party only. All the messages regarding the said offer, cancellation of order and so the refund are from the e-mail address of the Opposite Party only. There is no document on record showing that the Seller made any such kind of offer. Pertinently, the decision of making this offer and later, cancelling the same was of the Opposite Party alone. Therefore, the Opposite Party is liable for its deficient services for non-providing the promised item to the Complainant at its offered price.

 

8.      For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the Complaint and the same is allowed against Opposite Party. Opposite Party is directed:-

 

 [a] To make payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony, harassment and financial loss;

[b]  To make payment of an amount of Rs.2,500/- to the Complainant towards litigation expenses.

 

9.      This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Party shall be liable to pay Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned above.

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th March, 2015                                      

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT 

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER