Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/780/2014

Dhawal Bhandari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Private Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/780/2014
Date of Institution	:	26/11/2014
Date of Decision	:	01/06/2015

 

Dhawal Bhandari s/o Sh. RK Bhandari r/o House Number 3320, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh 160019.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Flipkart Internet Private Limited, A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala Industrial Layout, Next to Wipro Office, Corporation Ward No.68, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 034, Karnataka, India through its duly authorized representative. 

……Opposite Party

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                       

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
		Sh. Amit Mahajan, Counsel for OP

                       

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Dhawal Bhandari, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that on 8.7.2014 he purchased/ordered a modem/router from the OP for Rs.1,799/-, which upon receipt was found to be faulty and the said fact was duly reported to the OP customer care. Even the replacement modem was also faulty and the complainant asked for refund but the same was not given and rather the amount was kept by the OP in some facility called Flipkart Wallet where the money refunded was kept for lifetime and the customer could use it any time to purchase any product. However, subsequently when the complainant tried to purchase an electronic product on 27.7.2014 from the OP website, it refused to accept the wallet money and he had to unwillingly opt for payment of Rs.1,750/- through cash on delivery. Thereafter the complainant placed various orders dated 9.9.2014, 25.9.2014, 4.10.2014 and 11.10.2014 but every time the order was cancelled and the refund was remitted through Flipkart wallet. The complainant, on being allured by the OP, also purchased Flipkart First service from it for Rs.500/- and the benefits under the same included free shipping. However, when the complainant ordered products, he was shocked to see that still shipping was applicable and duly informed the OP but he was told that shipping would be free on limited products which were sold by a seller called WSRETAIL only and not on any other seller. Unwillingly the complainant had to cancel those products and also requested to cancel the Flipkart first service subscription and refund his amount as fraud had happened with him. However, the OP refunded only Rs.458.33 out of the amount of Rs.500/-.

                According to the complainant, major problem arose when he found that Rs.2,549/- in his Flipkart Wallet had disappeared and the same was duly reported to the OP Customer care and he was told that the same would be rectified soon, but the needful was not done. The complainant was constrained to spend extra money i.e. Rs.1,773/- to purchase new modem from his own money from www.amazon.in. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 

2.         In its written reply, OP has taken a number of preliminary objections including that the complainant is not a consumer; there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.  It has been averred that as an intermediary, involvement of OP in the entire transaction was very limited in providing only online platform and nothing beyond that.  It has been further averred that the OP does not sell any products on its own and only provides online platform where different registered sellers sell their products and visitors/ buyers purchase such products.  It has been contended that the complainant had purchased the products from the sellers listed on the website and OP is not involved in the entire transaction except for providing the platform and the contract is only between the sellers and buyers. It has further been contended that the OP is not manufacturer or seller of the TP Link Wireless modem router and as such it cannot be held liable for any alleged defects with the product.  It has been averred that the orders placed by the complainant for the said products were cancelled by the sellers and the amounts were credited to the complainant’s account.  It has been pleaded that the amount in the wallet balance was not reflecting due to some technical error which was resolved and the amount is reflecting in the complainant’s wallet balance as on date. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the OP and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for the OP. 
5.         As regards the allegations of the complainant regarding remitting of the amounts of Rs.1,799/- (Annexure C-1), Rs.250/- (Annexure C-2), Rs.50 (Annexure C-3), Rs.100/- (Annexure C-4), Rs.150/- (Annexure C-6) and Rs.50/- each (Annexure C-7 to C-10) through Flipkart Wallet is concerned,  the OP has specifically pleaded that it operates its trading facility platform over the internet under the domain name www.flipkart.com and is engaged in the business of online marketplace, providing platform/ technology and/or other mechanism/services to facilitate transactions, electronic commerce, mobile commerce, by and between respective buyers and sellers and enables dealing in various multiple categories of goods.  It has also been pleaded by the OP that its involvement is of intermediary in the entire transaction and the same is very limited to providing only the platform and nothing beyond this.  OP does not sell any products on its own.  It has been pleaded that OP provides online platform where different registered sellers sell their products and visitors/buyers purchase such products from the respective sellers from the aforesaid website. It has been contended that the contract is only between the sellers and the buyers and OP cannot be held liable for any liability owing to such contract. It has also been pleaded that the OP is not the manufacturer or the seller of the various goods/products. It has also been mentioned in the written statement of the OP that it cannot be held liable for non-performance of any contract by the seller.  Significantly, the averments in the written statement of the OP have not been controverted by the complainant despite granting him an opportunity of filing a rejoinder.  In the instant case, since the complainant placed orders with different sellers just as DealKing, Kaartonline, KM, TheImagingWorld, A1WebStors etc. and the products were not delivered by them to the complainant and the orders were unilaterally cancelled, the OP cannot be held liable for non-performance of such contracts by the sellers.
6.         The main grievance of the complainant against the OP relates to the amount of Rs.2,549/- which was lying in his Flipkart Wallet but the same disappeared.  The matter was reported to the OP customer care and the OP told that it was a technical problem in the system and the same will be rectified soon, but nothing was done. Copies of the communications are at Annexure C-11 (Colly.). According to the OP, the amount in the wallet was not reflecting due to some technical error and it was working on the issue and now the issue has been resolved and the amount is reflecting in the complainant’s wallet balance.  In other words, the amount of Rs.2,549/- in the Flipkart wallet of the complainant is now duly reflected in his Flipkart wallet.  However, the OP has not indicated as to when the technical error was rectified. 
7.         A perusal of the communications at Annexure
   C-11 (Colly.) shows that the complainant sent an email to the customer care of the OP on 16.10.2014 that wallet held by him was showing the refund balance as zero.  He asked the OP to rectify the problem in his account.  Vide email dated 17.10.2014 customer support of the OP assured the complainant that they would get back to him within 9 business days with exact update and assist him further.  The complainant was assured that his issue would be resolved in the best possible way at the earliest.  Such assurances were given vide email messages dated 18.10.2014, 20.10.2014, 24.10.2014, 25.10.2014, 26.10.2014 and 31.10.2014.  Lastly on 3.11.2014 it was again assured by the OP that they will resolve the problem by 10.11.2014 3:00 p.m. However, the problem was not resolved and the complainant had to file the present complaint on 26.11.2014. 
8.         The complainant has urged that though the problem relating to Flipkart wallet has been rectified during the pendency of the case, yet he has been immensely harassed, therefore, he is entitled to be compensated and paid the litigation expenses. We find considerable force in this contention. The fact remains that the complainant made a request to the OP for rectification of the problem in his wallet in respect of the refund balance but the OP did not indicate as to what was the technical problem on account of which the wallet balance was shown zero in the account of the complainant. The problem was not rectified by the OP despite repeated assurances.  Though the OP has not mentioned the exact date in its written reply, yet it is admitted by the complainant that the amount of his wallet balance is now being reflected in his account.  We are of the view that the evidence on record points out towards deficiency in service on the part of the OP because when an amount of Rs.2,549/- was available in the Flipkart wallet of the complainant, the account ought not to have shown zero figure on 16.10.2014. The OP failed to rectify the said technical defect despite repeated assurances and ultimately the complainant was compelled to file this complaint on 26.11.2014. We are of the opinion that the abovesaid delay on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainant is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. OP is directed as under  :-

i)      To make payment of an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service and causing harassment to him;

ii)     To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

10.         This order be complied with by OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
01/06/2015	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	Member	President