DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 415/2019
No. __________________ Dated : ____________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
HARISH GUPTA S/o LT. SH. ASHOK GUPTA,
DIRECTOR C/o RHP MARKETING PVT. LTD.,
365-366, 1st FLOOR, POCKET-11B,
SEC.-23, ROHINI, DELHI-110085. …COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
FLIPKART INTERNET PVT. LTD.,
VAISHNAVI SUMMIT, No.-6/B,
7th MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, 3rd FLOOR,
KORAMANGALA, BENGLURU,
KARNATAKA-560034. …OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 23.05.2019
Date of Decision: 22.08.2019
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that the complainant is one of the directors of a company namely RHP Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant has been taking services of OP for selling his products online since 2018. The complainant further alleged that the complainant got an order for a
CC No. 415/2019 Page 1 of 5
Scanner through Flipkart website/mobile app vide order no. OD11 4892088195203000 in the month of March-2019 and the product/scanner make Canon was picked up by executive of OP/Flipkart Logistic team in the same month from the complainant. Thereafter, the product i.e. Scanner was undelivered and it was returned to the complainant on 04.04.2019 but the scanner was broken/damaged. On the same day i.e. 04.04.2019, the complainant raised a claim request/complaint/support ticket vide reference no. IN1904041600573963008 on the flipkart’s website to register his complaint and asked for a complete refund and on the above said claim request raised for refund, flipkart rejected the claim. On 08.04.2019, the complainant sent some more images again with more angles for their clarity and satisfaction and asked for the claim vide incident ID/ reference no. IN1904081132473053163. On 09.04.2019, the complainant received a reply from OP that the claim request has been approved and the refund would be processed within 2-3 business days and again the complainant went into mental agony when he saw the claim amount and he received a claim of Rs.922.88 for the order ID OD114892088195203000 and the actual amount of the product/scanner was Rs.4,950/- and after seeing the claim amount, the complainant again raised a complaint/support ticket vide reference no. IN1904101913280015720 on 10.04.2019 and
CC No. 415/2019 Page 2 of 5
asked for a claim of full refund of Rs.4,950/- and the complainant mentioned in the claim request that it was not his mistake/fault and the product/scanner was damaged because of the Flipkart Logistic team who picks-up and delivers the products from one place to another. On 11.04.2019, the complainant received a reply from OP that the claim request has been rejected mentioning on the name of policies, rules and restrictions, as a reason and on the same day i.e. 11.04.2019, the complainant replied on the Flipkart’s rejection mail vide reference no. IN 1904111612399499110 and asked them to send/share their policies, rules and regulations in detail on which OP shared a link regarding the policy on 12.04.2019 and when the complainant opened the link, there was nothing in detail about the policy regarding the return of damaged product or something like that. On 17.04.2019, the complainant raised a claim again vide reference no. IN1904171112179078554 and asked for the grievance e-mail ID but in reply, OP did not share any grievance e-mail ID and on the above said support ticket, the complainant did not get any response from OP, then he raised one new support ticket vide reference no. IN1904302000197418216 on 30.04.2019 and asked for the policies in details alongwith the grievance e-mail ID on which OP rejected the claim and request of the complainant on 01.05.2019. The complainant further alleged
CC No. 415/2019 Page 3 of 5
that the complainant suffered a lot by unfair trade practice by the complainant and also liable for lots of stress/strain.
2. We have heard the Counsel for the complainant on the admissibility of the case and have considered the case of the complainant. As per the admitted case of the complainant, the complainant has sent the product i.e. scanner through OP to be sold to other person i.e. the complainant is involved in commercial activities.
3. The first and foremost question which arises for consideration is “whether or not the complainant is a consumer” as envisaged u/s 2 (1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and “whether the complaint is maintainable”.
4. In order to find answer to this question it would be useful to consider Sec. 2 (1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986, which defines the term “Consumer”. On reading the said Section it is clear that Consumer is a person who buys goods for consideration or hires or avails of service for consideration. There is an exception to the explanation by providing that if the person hires or avails service for consideration for commercial purpose, he would not be termed as “Consumer”.
5. We are not convinced with the submissions of learned Counsel for the complainant. On a perusal of the complaint it is revealed that the complainant has received an order for supply of the product i.e. scanner online through OP to be delivered to its destination and the
CC No. 415/2019 Page 4 of 5
executive of OP has collected the product from the complainant to be supplied to the destination. It clearly shows that the complainant is dealing in commercial activities and has hired the services of OP for commercial purposes. Thus, the complainant is not covered under the definition of the word “Consumer”. Thus, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 22nd day of August, 2019.
BARIQ AHMAD USHA KHANNA M.K.GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 415/2019 Page 5 of 5
UPLOADED BY :- SATYENDRA JEET
