Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/930/2019

Bhavya Vasudev - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shrey Vasudev Adv. & Rahul Verma Adv.

18 Sep 2019

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	930 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	12.09.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	18.09.2019

 

 

 

 

1]  Bhavya Vasudev, aged about 32 years, D/o Col.Sudhir Vasudev, R/o House NO.2363, Sector  38-C, Chandigarh.

2]  Shrey Vasudev, aged about 26 years, S/o Col.Sudhir Vasudev, R/o House No.2363, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.        

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Regd. office Address: Building Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bangaluru 560103, Karnataka, India, through its Managing Director.

2]  Dev International, Regd. Address: A-48, 49 Chanak Ya Place, near Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, new Delhi 110059, 2^nd Address:- S-2/135, Old Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi    110059, through its Principal Employer/ Proprietor/Representative/Authorised Signatory.

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

                                    

Argued by: Sh.Shrey Vasudev, Adv. for complainant 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant No.1 placed an order for one ‘Rakhi’ from Hyderabad from the website ‘Flipkart.com’, to be delivered to complainant No.2 at Chandigarh and payment for the said items was made by complainant No.1 Online through her debit card. It is averred that the said ordered product ‘Rakhi’ bears the order No.OD116221751098949000, dated 9.8.2019.  It is stated that the said product was ‘Flipkart Assured’, which as per the website policy implies that the product which once brought and delivered would be identical and same in all aspect as depicted on the website.  However, when the product was delivered to complainant No.2, it was different than the one depicted on the website.  It is stated that the Opposite Parties by not delivered product as ordered and failed to honour its commitment, hence rendered deficient services.  As such, a legal notice in this regard  was sent to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant on the point of admission of this complaint before this Forum.

 

3]       The complainant No.1 reported to have ordered ‘Rakhi’ (Ann.C-3), but received different ‘Rakhi’ from OPs, as shown in Ann.C-4.

 

4]       After careful consideration of whole issue and seeing the replica of ‘Rakhi’s’  (Ann.C-3 & C-4), we are of the opinion that there does not seem to be any major variation in the product, which may prejudice the interest of the complainant. 

 

5]       Keeping into consideration the peculiar facts, as raised in the present complaint, the complaint is found to be without any merit and as such dismissed in limine. 

         Copy of this order be forwarded to the complainant, as per rules.

Announced

18^th September, 2019                                                   

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER