Orissa

Cuttak

CC/44/2021

Saswat Kumar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Self

20 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                C.C.No.44/2021

 

                                Sri Saswat Kumar Das,

S/o: Amiya Kumar Das,

Presently serving with

At:Bantunia,P.O:Bentakar,

42Mouza,Cuttack SAdar,

Cuttack,Odisha-754112.                                                                   ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

Managing Director,

Flipkart Internet Private Limited,

Buildings Alyssa,Begonia &

Clove Embassy Tech Village,

Outer Ring Road,Devarabeesanahalli Village,

Bengaluru-560103,Karnataka,India....Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    03.03.2021.

Date of Order:  20.04.2022.

 

For the complainant:            Self.

For the O.Ps:                      Mr. S.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

                                               

The case record is put up today for orders.

Perused the case record.

The case of the complainant in short is that he booked through the O.P for purchasing a mobile phone (OPPO A52 (Stream White,128 GB) (4 GB RAM) bearing Flipkart order no.OD120078714224048000 through online purchase system on 29.10.20  by paying an amount of Rs.5594/-.  It is also stated by him that due to Diwali, the big Diwali sale offer was being provided by the O.P by that time.   He booked the mobile phone with discount offered by the O.P and paid Rs.5594/- through Axis Bank debit card for which  order was placed successfully, but, suddenly on 31.10.20, without any intimation and knowledge he got an order of cancellation SMS and refund intimation also.  When the complainant contacted O.P official about such cancellation, they did not take any steps.   The complainant could not avail discount offer and sustained loss of Rs.6,996/ by such cancellation-.  As the O.P did not redress his grievance, on 27.1.21, he served a notice through Registered post with A.D for settlement of the issues.  But till date the O.P has not taken any action on his notice.  Hence he has filed the present case claiming compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation.

2.         The O.P appeared and contested the case and filed his written version.  The case of the O.P is that all allegations of the complainant are false, frivolous and denied.  It is stated by the O.P that Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act,1956 operates as an online trading platform for shopping under domain name www.fiipkart.com..  The company/website is neither the manufacturer nor the seller of any goods/products of its own.  The company only provides online platform where different registered sellers sell their products and visitors makes purchases of these products at their own will.  It is also stated that the website is an electronic market place where various users meet and interact electronically and engage in commerce and transact.  The buyer agrees and acknowledges that the company is only a facilitator.  Thus, any contract for sale is a bipartite contract in-between buyer and seller.  The company does not provide any guarantee, warranty or assurance to the buyer of the product.  The warranty/ price discount/ replacement/refund/repair and after sale services are offered by the manufacturer or seller of the product.  It is further stated by the O.P that the product had been offered by an independent third party, who is registered on the online market place of the O.Ps.  The seller has cancelled the alleged order of the complainant citing the order “misconfiguration of offer” as the reason for cancellation meaning thereby that there was some error on the part of the seller while specifying offer on the product.   Furthermore, as a goodwill gesture the seller has also provided Rs.1000/- as gift card to the complainant.  The O.P being an intermediary has duly intimated the same to the complainant.  It is also stated by the O.P if at all any claim is subsisting that is against the seller but not against him and he has been wrongly dragged into the present case.  The O.P further denied about the receiving of legal notice. The seller has further intimated the O.P that he has refunded full amount to the complainant on 31.10.2020.  Hence, it is stated by the O.P that they have not committed any deficiency in service and prayed that dismissal of the complaint case against him with exemplary cost.

3.  Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition as well as in the written version, it is felt proper to adjudicate the following issues.

i.          Whether the complainant is a consumer under the C.P.Act?

ii.         Whether the complaint case is maintainable?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to get the benefits as made in his complaint petition.

Issues No.1 & 2

For the sake of convenience issues no.1 & 2 are taken up combinedly at first. While going through the definition as elucidated in the C.P.Act,2019, e-commerce has been introduced in the Act.  The present transaction being made on online, the case is maintainable and the complainant is a consumer and this Commission has   jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint case and as such the case is maintainable.  Accordingly all the two issues are answered in the affirmative in support of the complainant.

Issue No.3

Perused the complaint petition as well as the documents, so also written version filed by the O.P.  The O.P is an e-commerce entity.  He has done his duties as per the C.P.Act (e-commerce Rules,2020).  He being only the intermediary is not responsible in any way the dealings/transactions by the complainant and the seller.  The O.P website is an electronic market place where various users meet and interact electronically and engaged in commerce and transact.  The O.P being an e-commerce entity has acted as per the instruction of the seller.  He has no role to play in the transaction.  Hence it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  The seller has not been impleaded as a party in the present case.  This case is bad for non-joinder of proper parties.

The complainant’s main allegation is his order was cancelled by the O.P but he could not prove the fact that the O.P was responsible for cancellation of his order.  Admittedly the O.P is not the seller or manufacturer of the mobile phone.  Regarding the loss of Rs.6,996/- as alleged by the complainant, he has not adduced any evidence or material to that effect that how he sustained loss.  Thus issue no.3 is answered in the negative.

 

                                           ORDER

In view of the above discussions, the complaint petition is dismissed.  No cost.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 20^th day of April,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

.                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.                     

 

                                                                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                    President