D.O.F:05/03/2021 D.O.O:29/07/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.59/2021
Dated this, the 29th day of July 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Fayis Ashraf Ali, Aged 33 years
S/o Ashraf
R/at Kacheri Valappil, Kacheri
Thalakkulathur, Kozhikkode : Complainant
(Adv: Shajid Kammadam)
And
1. Flipkart Internet Private Limited
Vaishnavi Summit,
No 6/B, 7th Main,
80 Feet Road, 3 rd Block,
Koramangala,
Bangalore, Karnataka – 560034
Rep by authorized person
(Adv: Pradeep Rao & Avanish Srivastava)
2. Indo Spirit Private Limited : Opposite Parties
Marasandra and Madnahalli
Venkattapura Village
Kasaba Hobil, Malur Taluk
Kolar District, Bangalore,
Karnataka – 563130
Rep by Authorized Person
-
SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER
The case of the complainant in brief is that he had an account in www.flipkart.com who is an online service provider. Flipkart provides online platform to facilitated the transaction between seller and purchaser. The Opposite Party No:1 facilities online shopping which permits the account holder to buy products directly on their platform. The Opposite Party No:2 is an online store of computer and accessories and it is registered on Opposite Party No:1 is portal. The complainant selected lap top of his choice and Opposite Party No:2 notified the choice . The complainant placed an order for Lenova yoga S 740 core i7 10th Gen on 22/01/2021. Order was in line of prepaid and to be delivered at one designs, Habeeb building KPR Rao Road Kasaragod. The Complainant placed order for a total value of Rs. 89,990/- out of the same Rs. 1625/- was paid by redeeming the coins, which were earned by shopping on flipkart. The complainant paid the consideration by virtue as an invoice Dt: 23/01/2020. The consignment was served to the complainant on 25/01/2021. It contained a lap top with different specification from as mentioned on sight, the parcel is arrived in completed the destination. The laptop did not contain 1TB HDD as promised. The complainant was deprived of peace of mind and have to spent time in worry. The complainant registered his grievance with Opposite Parties. However it is not solved. Neither it was replaced with original specification nor provide an external hard disc assured specification. The complainant is a well known vloger under a name Ecowheeler he had 1.57k subscribers. He was expected to do a vlog on Ranipuram hill station. He visited Ranipuram and created viewers. Due to non delivery of assured product the complainant could not process those videos artistically and upload to blog. The complainant also entitled interest accrued over the amount of Rs.89,990/- only from the date of delivery of the laptop that is on 25/01/2021 at the rate of 8% per annum. That the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the loss and agony sustained to the complainant due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the complainant. The complainant valued the claim for Rs. 50,000/- with Rs. 5000/- cost. Hence the complaint for necessary redressal.
Notice to Opposite Party to served even though they sought time no version is filed
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined as PW1 Ext A1 marked . Opposite Party submitted that they have no evidence.
The issue raised for the consideration are
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs?
- If so what is the relief?
The complainant placed order for a Lenova Computer with other electronic item for the total value of Rs.89,990/-. The complainant paid the amount on 23.01/2021. When the complainant received the consignment the lap top did not contain 1TB HDD as promised this caused severe mental agony to the complainant. He registered compliant with Opposite Parties. The complainant was cross examined by Opposite Party No:1 as Pw1 stated before the commission that he purchased the product from Opposite Party No:1 through opposite Party No:2 . He purchased item from flipkart .
Considering the issues 1 to 3 it is through from the documentary evidence that the complainant purchased certain items from Opposite Party No:1 through Opposite Party No:2. As per Ext A1 complainant purchased products for a total sum of Rs. 88,365/- . The grievance of the complainant is that the lap top did not contain 1TB HDD. As soon as received the consignment he registered the complaint with Opposite Party. But Opposite Party failed to cure the defect in their sale. It is the bounden duty of the seller to satisfy the customer. The Opposite Party failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. Therefore the complainant the seeking a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with cost.
The commission carefully gone through the affidavit and Ext A1 document. Due to the negligence on the part of Opposite Party one item is not delivered to the complainant . The negligence on the part of Opposite Party caused loss and agony to the complainant. Considering the circumstances of the case we are of the view that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- with cost is a reasonable compensation in this case.
Hence the complaint is allowed directing Opposite Parties to refund Rs.30,000/- to the complainant along with Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost. Opposite Party No:1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount to the complainant.
The time for compliance is the 30 days from the receipt of copy of this judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Tax Invoice
Witness Examined
Pw1- Fayiz Ashraf Ali
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
