Flipkart Internet Private Limited V/S Gurpreet Singh Bhinder - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Karnal

CC/617/2020

Gurpreet Singh Bhinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhdev Sharma

03 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

Complaint No. 617 of 2020

Date of instt.28.12.2020

Date of Decision: 03.06.2022

Gurpreet Singh Bhinder son of Shri Satvinder Singh, resident of house no.191, Arya Puram, near ITI Chowk, Karnal.

…….Complainant.

Versus

1. Filipkart Internet Retail Private Limited- Vaishnavi Summit no.6/B, 7^th main 80 feet Road, 3^rd Block Koramangla Banglore-560034 Thru its Director/Manager.

2. Tech. Connect Retail Pvt. Ltd. Marasandra and Madnahaatti, Venketaapura village Kasaba, Hubli. Malur Taluk District Kotar, Malur Banglore (Karnataka) through its Managing Director.

3. E. Kart Pvt. Ltd. 15A, Cross road, Yelahanka Satelite Town, Yelahanka, Banguru-560039 through its Managing Director.

…..Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

Argued by: Shri Sukhdev Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for OPs.

(Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:

The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant has placed an order for U.S. Polo ASSN Full sleeve Slid men Jacket. M. purple colour with the OP no.1, vide order ID-0D120429078417387000 on 08.12.2020 and same was delivered to the complainant on 12.12.2020, vide invoice no.FAETLP2103814182 dated 09.12.2020 for which an amount of Rs.3599/- were charged from the complainant. The said product has been by the OP no.2 to the complainant through OP no.1. After getting the product the complainant opened the packet and found that packet was not containing the ordered item and in place some other jacket of other brand. On coming to know said fact complainant immediately send message to the OP no.1 for collecting back the said parcel and refund of the amount paid by him. OP no.1 rejected the refund without assigning any reason on 13.12.2020. The complainant again made a request for refund of the amount but OPs neither took back their packet nor refunded the amount to the complainant and declined the request of the complainant without sufficient cause. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2. On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version stating therein that OP no.1 provides online marketplace platform/technology and/or other mechanism/services to the seller and buyer of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic commerce for various goods, by and between respective buyers and sellers. It is further pleaded that flipkart platform is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. In the present complaint also, it is evident that the actual seller of the product is a third party seller i.e. OP no.2. Hence, request for replacement/refund made by the complainant cannot be fulfilled by OP no.1. It is further pleaded that whether in terms of warranty on the products, price, discounts, promotional offers, after sale services or otherwise, are offered and provided by the seller or manufacturer of the products sold on flipkart platform. It is further pleaded that OP has no knowledge regarding the product delivery whether it was delivered it actual condition or not to the complainant because it is sold by the seller of the product i.e. OP no.2. It is further pleaded that complainant has wrongly arrayed the OP no.1 in the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. OP no.2 filed its separate written version and denied that the allegation of wrong delivery of the product in the sealed pack box as it was received from the manufacturing/distributor within the time specified in the order. It is further stated that the product was duly delivered by the OP to the complainant in a sealed box and intact (as it was received from the manufacturer/distributor) within specified time. It is further pleaded that dealer or retailer cannot be held liable for defect in the good/products in view of the legal position. Complainant purchased U.S. Pollo Full sleeve slid Men Jacket M.Purple Colour from OP. It is further stated that the role of the OP is only limited to reselling the products of various manufacturer and its role comes to the end as soon as the product ordered is delivered at the address provided by the customer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. OP no.3 in its reply stated that complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP, the involvement of the OP is to provide delivery of products booked by different customer on e-commerce portals/online portals like that of

5. Parties then led their respective evidence.

6. Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1/A, copy of E.Kart Ex.C1, copy of invoice Ex.C2, copy of retail, copy of order detail Ex.C3, copy of return policy Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 02.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs suffered a separate statement to the effect that written statement filed by the OPs be read as evidence on behalf of OPs.

8. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9. Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant has purchased U.S.Polo ASSN Full sleeve Slid Men Jacket purple colour on 08.12.2020 for an amount of Rs.3599/- from the website of OP No.1. On receipt of the delivery, it was found that the packet was not containing the ordered items and was replaced from some other jacket of other brand. Thereafter, complainant lodged complaint and requested for collecting the said parcel back and to refund the cost of the items but OPs rejected the refund without any reason on 13.12.2020. He further argued that there was a return policy of fifteen days of the receipt of the product. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, prayed for allowing the same.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written versions, has vehemently argued that OP no.1 is only a facilitator not a manufacturer of the product. All the products on flipkart platform are sold by third party sellers, who avail of the online marketplace services provided by OP no.1, on terms decided by the respective sellers only. He further argued that the product was duly delivered by the OP no.2 to the complainant in a sealed box and intact (as it was received from the manufacturer/distributor) within specified time. He further argued that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP no.3, the involvement of the OP no.3 is to provide delivery of products booked by different customer on e-commerce portals/online portals. The OP no.3 is not involved in the entire transaction except to deliver the product to the end customers as per address provided to it and also collect the money if the payment is to be made on cash on delivery. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11. Admittedly the complainant had placed an order for U.S. Polo ASSN Full Sleeve slid Men Jacket through flipkart i.e. OP No.1 and the seller of OP No.1 had delivered the product at the address of complainant.

12. It is evident from the copy of invoice Ex.C2 that complainant had ordered U.S. Polo ASSN Full Sleeve Jacket through OP no.1 and this fact has not been denied by the OP no.1. The main grievance of the complainant is that he had received the cheap/different quality of Jacket from the OPs and due to that he made complaint to OPs under return policy, but OPs rejected the request of complainant through email Ex.C3 and Ex.C4.

13. On the other hand, in order to rebut the version of complainant, OP no.2 has miserably failed to produce any evidence. Hence, the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

14. The OP no.1 has taken a plea that OP No.1 that it is only a platform to book the product and that the products are being sold by the sellers, therefore, it has no responsibility of any kind. In this regard, we are of the considered view that the sellers have been authorized by the OP No.1. By merely saying that OP No.1 has no responsibility, the OP No.1 cannot escape from its liability and this plea taken by OP No.1 has no force.

15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

16. As per the invoice Ex.C2, the complainant had purchased the jacket in question for an amount of Rs.3599/-, hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.3599/- alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses, etc.