Haryana

Karnal

CC/117/2019

Raman Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internal Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 117 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.27.02.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 09.01.2020.

 

Raman Kumar son of Shri Jaswantg Roy Care Nobat Ram, Main Bazar village Jundla, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Flipkart Internal Pvt. Ltd. 1^st floor no.447/C, 1^st A Cross, 12^th Main, 4^th Block, opp. BSNL Telephone Exchange, Karamangala, Bangore-560034, Karanatka.             

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik……Member   

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Complainant in person.

                   Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for opposite party.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had ordered for one pair shoes through order no.OD11413627386515900, Marka Red Chap dated 14.12.2018. The payment of the shoes pair was transferred as a value of Rs.3995/- in the account of OP. The shoe pair has been received on 18.12.2018. After receiving the packet when complainant opened it he found old pair shoes regarding which complainant had sent the information regarding old shoes on the same day i.e. 18.02.2018.The OP assured the complainant that their e-card would come and would received the shoes back and payment would be transferred in your flipkart account. Neither shoes were returned nor payment has been transferred till yet. The courier man of the OP came to the complainant’s house but has not taken the shoes of the complainant. After that complainant made complaints to the OPs 2-3 times through e-mail for claiming of shoes but the employee of E-card appointed by OP always visited the house and return back without changing the pair of shoes. On 09.01.2019 the OP sent an e-mail to the complainant by informing that his flipkart is blocked. When complainant informed the OP that there was remaining balance of 2513/- in his flipkart. Then OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and refused to change the pair of shoes and returning the balance amount of Rs.2513/-. The OP has grabbed his balance of Rs.2513/- in his flipkart by refusing to return his shoes. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version stating therein that Flipkart platform is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customer. In the present complaint complainant with his complaint that the actual seller of the product is a third party seller, who was not even arrayed as a party and not the OP. It is further stated that the product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by OP and OP has no role in providing warranty of the product sold by an independent seller through the flipkart platform of the OP. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP, hence OP does not render any liability arising out of such contract. It is further stated that the grievance of the complainant is with respect to the alleged defect in the goods and after sale services provided by the Manufacturer and/or the Service Centre engaged by the Manufacturer under Manufacturer’s Warranty clause. It is further stated that the grievance of the complainant should have been only against the Manufacturer of the product or the Authorized Service Centre for not providing after sale services to its customers. Further, complainant has not raised a single specific issue or grievance against the OP in the entire complaint. The OP being an intermediary and not the seller/manufacturer/authorized service centre of the product sold to the complainant, in no way, assumes liability for defect in the goods, if found any. It is further pleaded that the complainant is an return abuser, he always placed orders on the web portal of the OP and thereafter, on its own without any basis of the same placed either return request or want refund with regard to the product since its because of heavy number of return request his account has been blocked by the concern team after gone through the heavy number of return request. It is further stated OP is neither liable to refund the cost/replacement of the product nor to pay any compensation to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 10.07.2019.

4.             On the other hand, learned counsel of the OP has made a statement that the written submission filed by the OP be read as evidence of the OP.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant had ordered for one pair shoes through order no.OD11413627386515900, Marka Red Chap dated 14.12.2018. The payment of the shoes pair was transferred as a value of Rs.3995/- in the account of OP. The shoe pair has been received on 18.12.2018. After receiving the packet when complainant opened it he found old pair shoes regarding which complainant had sent the information regarding old shoes on the same day i.e. 12.02.2018.The OP assured the complainant that their e-courier would come and would received the shoes back and payment would be transferred in your flipkart account. Neither shoes were returned nor has payment been transferred till yet.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OP, in brief, is that Flipkart platform is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customer. The product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by OP and OP has no role in providing warranty of the product sold by an independent seller through the flipkart platform of the OP. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP, hence OP does not render any liability arising out of such contract. The grievance of the complainant is with respect to the alleged defect in the goods and after sale services provided by the Manufacturer and/or the Service Centre engaged by the Manufacturer under Manufacturer’s Warranty clause. The grievance of the complainant should have been only against the Manufacturer of the product or the Authorized Service Centre for not providing after sale services to its customers. Further, complainant has not raised a single specific issue or grievance against the OP in the entire complaint. The OP being an intermediary and not the seller/manufacturer/authorized service centre of the product selling to the complainant, in no way, assumes liability for defect in the goods, if found any. The complainant is an return abuser, he always places orders on the web portal of the OP and thereafter, on its own without any reason places either returns request or wants refund with regard to the product. Therefore, because of heavy number of return requests on his account has been blocked by the concern team after have gone through the heavy number of return requests.

8.             It is not disputed that the complainant has placed an order to purchase a pair of shoes through OP.As per the version of the complainant when he opened the packet he found the old shoes in the packet. Then complainant complained the OP in this regard but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel of the OP submits that complainant is an abuser to return the order, he always placed the order on web portal of the OP and thereafter on its own without any basis of the same places either return request or want refund. This act has been done by the complainant thirteen times and detail of that mentioned in para no.18 of the written statement of the OP.

9.                The complainant placed only photocopy of the alleged shoes and failed to produce the original before the Forum. It cannot be said that the said photo belongs to the shoes which have been taken from the seal box handed by the OP to the complainant. Moreover OP is not a manufacturer and there is any defect in the product then manufacturer is only liable for the same. The manufacturer was not even arrayed as a necessary party in the compliant by the complainant. OP is only electronic platform which acts as intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between third party sellers and independent end customer. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

10.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:09.01.2020                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

       

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                    Member                         Member