Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/143/2024

ASMITA CHAUDHURI - Complainant(s)

Versus

FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

17 Sep 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sambalpur
Near, SBI Main Branch, Sambalpur
Uploaded by Office Assistance
 
Complaint Case No. CC/143/2024
( Date of Filing : 12 Apr 2024 )
 
1. ASMITA CHAUDHURI
S/O-Prasanna Kumar Chaudhuri, R/O- Lane 6, Quarter No.17, Floor 2nd, Kalyannagar, Budharaja, Northern Division, Dist-Sambalpur-768004, Odisha.
SAMBALPUR
ODISHA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED
Building Alyssa Begonia Clover Embassy tech Village, Outer ring Road, Devarbisanahalli village, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560103.
BENGALURU URBAN
KARNATAKA
2. 2. Delete KOM limited
G-82, Site-5, Kasna up side Greater Naoida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-210307.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sadananda Tripathy MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 Sri. A.K. Sahoo & Associates, Advocate for the Opp. Party 0
Dated : 17 Sep 2024
Final Order / Judgement

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 143/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member

 

Asmita Chaudhuri,

S/O-Prasanna Kumar Chaudhuri,

R/O-Lane 6, Quarter No.17, Floor 2nd, Kalyannagar, Budharaja,

Northern Division,

Dist-Sambalpur-768004, Odisha.                                   ….…......Complainant.

                                    -Vrs.-

  1. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.

Building Alyssa Begonia Clover Embassy tech Village, Outer ring Road, Devarbisanahallivillage, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560103.

  1. Delete KOM limited

G-82, Site-5, Kasnaup side Greater Naoida, Gautam Buddha Nagar,

Uttar Pradesh-210307.                                          ………........Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

  1. For the Complainant         :- Self
  2. For the O.P. No.1                           :- Sri. A.K. Sahoo & Associates
  3. For the O.P.No.2                :- Ex-parte

 

Date of Filing:12.04.2024,  Date of Hearing :30.07.2024  Date of Judgement : 17.09.2024

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

  1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant ordered D-elite Kom Glide Engineered Wood Computer Desk amounting to Rs. 6,479/- on 16.01.2024 and the product was received on dtd. 24.01.2024 but unfortunately, it was found to be damaged upon inspection. Subsequently, the Complainant initiated a return request for the damaged product on the same day of receipt. Despite repeated attempts and several calls to the respondent’s concern customer care, the return request was unjustly rejected by the respondent’s concern. The Respondents have miserably failed in providing right and proper service despite the Complainant has paid the full amount to the respondent authority and thereby causing deficiency in service.
  2. The Written Version of the O.P No. 1 is that the product was purchased from the third party seller in the present complaint who had sold the product to the Complainant and supplied it through third party logistic service provider. Thus, the OP No. 1 never came in possession of either the actually ordered product or the alleged defective Wood Computer Desk product at any point of time. The ultimate beneficiary in the present transaction is the seller of the concerned product. However, it is important to highlight the fact that upon being intimated about the alleged manufacturing defect of the product the OP No. 1 acting within its own capacity quickly escalated the concerned matter to the seller of the product, who is appropriate entity to entertain such concern. According to the update from the seller of the product, a technician was sent to examine and repair the alleged defect of the concerned product. Moreover, seller informed the OP No. 1 that the logistics team has cancelled the request for refund/replacement due to reason best known to seller of the product. The OP No. 1’s role is limited to that of an intermediary and any replacement or refund of the product does not fall within its purview. Any grievance which the Complainant has is only against the seller and manufacturer of the product as it is the responsibility of the seller and manufacturer to provide delivery, refund/replacement Warranty and other after sales services.

The OP No. 2 has not given any version.

  1. From the records, submission and evidences, it is found that the product was received on dtd. 24.01.2024 but it was found to be damaged. The Complainant initiated a return request for the damaged product on the same day of receipt. Despite repeated attempts and several calls to the OP’s concern customer care, the return request has been unjustly rejected by the OP’s concern. However, as manufacturing defect found,   as product seller, the OP No. 2 is liable for deficiency in service. Accordingly it is ordered.     

                                               ORDER

The O.P No. 2 is directed to refund Rs. 6,479/- towards cost of the product to the Complainant and return back the product from the Complainant, Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony, deficiency in service to the Complainant as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 17th day of Sep, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sadananda Tripathy]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.