STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

Jagan Nath Bhandari, Office address: SCO No.35-36, 3rd Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh and resident of House No.12, Block A, Janta Nagar, Naya Gaon, Mohali, Punjab 160103.

                                                                                      … Appellant

V E R S U S

1.   Flipkart Internet Private Limited, through its Managing Director/Manager/Authorized signatory, Flipkart India headquarters Mailing Address : Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Ozone Manay Tech Park, #56/18 & 55/09, 7th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore 560068, Karnataka, India

2.      State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory, Address: Medical Institute, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh  

                                                                                      ..... Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 07.03.2024 passed by       District       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.238/2020.

BEFORE:    HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                     MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

For the appellant         :     Sh. S.K.Verma, Advocate

For respondent No.1   :     Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate

For respondent No.2   :     Sh.Sanjeev Dua, Advocate

 PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed  the complaint directing OP No.1/respondent No.1 to refund Rs.801/- alongwith interest @10% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of its actual payment to the complainant/appellant. However, complaint against OP no.2/respondent No.2 was dismissed.    

2.       Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the Complainant/appellant  that Opposite Party No.1/respondent No.1 is an Indian Company leading internet based retailer and also offers home shipping of products listed on its website. It offered  Redmi Note 7 Pro (Neptune Blue 64 GB)  mobile costing Rs.11,999/-  and the complainant/appellant from his wife’s Flipkart account booked the same on 7.10.2019 vide order id OD116732040810840000 from the website of  Opposite Party  No.1  by opting payment mode of EMI amounting to Rs.1088 X 12 months from his Savings Bank Account No.30065020326 at SBI/OP No.2.  The said phone was delivered to the complainant within 2/3 days of its booking.  There was return option available within 10 days of its delivery and due to some defects in the mobile phone, the complainant   returned it to OP No.1 well within 10 days of its delivery and   sought refund. When the refund was not made, the complainant raised the concern with OP No.1 and asked about the status of refund.  OP No.1 then  assured to credit  the amount by 12.11.2019.  However,  OP No.1 failed to refund the amount by the promised date, as a result,   on 16.12.2019 the bank (OP No.2) deducted an amount of Rs.2176/- against EMI of loan amount from the saving account of the complainant.  It is stated that the complainant was in regular follow up with OP No.1 but every time it sought more time to solve the issue and ultimately, it refunded the amount   only on 30.12.2019 in his account.    It is further  stated that on 01.01.2020 the OP No.2 Bank further deducted another EMI of Rs.1100/-.  The complainant approached  OP No.2 bank and requested to close the loan account as the amount stood refunded by OP No.1, whereupon OP No.2 closed the loan account on 03.01.2020.  It is averred that  that due to the above said act & conduct of OP No.1 in delaying the refund, the complainant has suffered financial loss of Rs.801/- as the complainant   had to pay Rs.12800/- against the loan of Rs.11999/- which could have been saved if OP No.1 had refunded the amount on time.    Alleging   deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of  OP No.1, a consumer complaint was filed before the Learned Lower Commission. 

3.                    Pursuant to issuance of notice, OP No.1 appeared before the learned Lower Commission and   filed its written version  admitting the factual matrix of the case but  stated that OP No.1 is neither the seller nor manufacturer/producer/service centre of the product and neither is a logistics provider in this case and works merely an intermediary providing an online platform to independent third party sellers. It is stated that the whole transaction is between the complainant and the seller of the product. It is further stated that the liability for refunding the requisite amount lies upon the seller of the product, as such,   OP No.1 was not responsible for any financial loss occurred to the complainant.  It is pleaded that in the present complaint, the seller of the product failed to initiate the  process of refund which was communicated to the complainant by answering OP No.1.  Denying other allegations, a prayer was made for  dismissal of the complaint.

4.               Opposite Party No.2/respondent No.2  also filed written version stating  therein that after creating loan account by using Credit Card, an auto generated message is flashed on the mobile of the customer. It is stated that the refund was to be made by Opposite Party No.1 and  OP No.2 has no concern with the refund transactions.  It is further stated  that the refund was made into the account of the complainant but no request for closure of loan account was made by the complainant.  It is further stated  that the system automatically deducts the amount of  EMI on its due date from the account of the complainant till the said loan account is not cleared/closed by the loanee and it was the duty of the complainant to give a request for closure of loan account to the bank.  It was pleaded that  there was no deficiency in service on the part of  OP No.2 and a prayer was made for  dismissal of the complaint.

 5.                  On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission  allowed the complaint partly against OP NO.1/respondent No.1, as noted  in the opening part of this order.   

6.               Still dissatisfied,   the instant Appeal  has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant  for grant of compensation for mental agony/harassment  besides litigation expenses which were not awarded by the Ld. Lower Commission while partly allowing the  complaint.

7.              We have heard learned  Counsel for the parties , and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

8.               It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Ld. Lower Commission has not appreciated the fact that due to the act and conduct of  respondent No.1 in delaying the refund, the CIBIL score of the appellant was badly affected. The Ld. Lower Commission failed to grant compensation for the deceitful actions of the respondent towards the appellant which affected the appellant and will also affect the other consumers in future as it will encourage the respondent to keep following their deceitful path.  On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the amount awarded by the Ld. Lower Commission is quite just and reasonable   and the impugned order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission does not call for any interference.

9.            It is admitted case of the parties that the mobile phone in question  was delivered to the appellant within 2-3 days of its booking which was done on  7.10.2019.  As there was return option in case of any defect in it, the appellant  found some defect in it and returned the mobile phone within 10 days of its  delivery and sought refund. When refund was not made, the appellant approached respondent No.1, which assured to refund the amount by 12.11.2019.  Ultimately the amount was  refunded to the appellant only on 30.12.2019 i.e. after about two month’s period from the date of return of the product which was done in Oct., 2019 and due to this delay, the appellant  suffered  financial loss of Rs.801/- towards loan interest.  The Ld. Lower Commission finding deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1  rightly allowed refund of Rs.801/- alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of complaint  till the date of actual payment to the appellant, which to our mind requires no further interference by this Commission.  Needless to mention here that the Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the consumers by awarding exaggerated compensation, at the cost of the service provider. Thus, we are of the view that nothing more is payable to the appellant/complainant. We find no case made out by the appellant for enhancement of compensation already awarded by the Ld. Lower Commission. 

10.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed ,  with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.  

11.                Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

12                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

13.                     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.