Haryana

Karnal

CC/134/2021

Sham Mohammad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Tapan Verma

20 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 134 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.02.03.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:20.04.2023

 

Sham Mohammad son of Chhote Khan, resident of Chamber no.516, Ground floor, Chamber Complex, District Courts, Karnal aged about 20 years.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. Vaishnavi Summit, Ground floor no.7, main 80 feet road 3^rd block, Koramangla Industrial Layout, Banglore-560039, Karnataka through its Managing Director.

 

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. 15-A, 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 Tapan Verma, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the 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 placed an order for U.S. Polo ASSN Full sleeve slip men jacket, blue colour with the OP no.1, vide order ID-OD120997184967005000 on 12.02.2021 and same was delivered to the complainant on 18.02.2021, vide invoice no.FAETLP2105837276 for which an amount of Rs.2899/- were charged from the complainant. The said product has been sold by the OP no.2 thorough OP no.1. After getting the product, complainant opened the packet and found that packet was not containing the ordered item and in place some other jacket of other brand which was old piece of wrong brand and wrong colour was sent to the complainant by the OP no.2. the complainant made videography of opening of the said parcel. On coming to know of 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 19.02.2021. 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 any sufficient cause. From 19.02.2021 to 27.02.2021, complainant made several requests for refund of said amount and get back the packet of said jacket but nothing was done by the OPs. 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 raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 provides online marketplace platform/technology and/or other mechanism/service to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic commerce for various goods by and between respective buyer and sellers and enables them to deal in various categories of goods. The OP no.1 is an electronics platform which acts and intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third-party sellers and independent end customer. The OP no.1 does not directly indirectly sells any products on flipkart platform. In the present complaint, it can be evidenced that the actual seller of the product is a third party seller i.e. OP no.2 and not the OP herein. The product delivery and replacement/refund is only provided by the seller as the product was sold by an independent third party seller i.e. OP no.2. Hence request for replacement/refund made by the complainant cannot be fulfilled by the OP no.1. 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.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version stating therein that OP no.2 is engaged in selling of goods manufactured and produced by other manufacturer. OP no.2 have a separate and distinct identity from that of the manufacturer of the product. OP are only the registered reseller of the product on Flipkart.com which is own and run by flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above reason the OP no.2 has been wrongly impleaded in the present complaint. OP no.2 denies the allegation of wrong delivery of the product in the sealed packbox as it was received from the manufacturer/distributor within time. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 in his reply stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP. The role of the OP is to provide delivery of products booked by different customer on e-commerce portals/online portals like that of www.flipkart.com and several other such companies, i.e. OP 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 payment is to be made on cash-on-delivery. However, in the present matter, the product was delivered to the complainant intact as it was picked by the seller. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1/A, copy of order Ex.C2, copy of bill Ex.C3, copies of order details Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 and closed the evidence o n 22.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On 11.11.2022, learned counsel for the OPs has suffered a statement that the written statement by OPs be read their evidence.

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 placed an order for purchase of U.S. Polo ASSN Full sleeve slip men jacket, blue colour on 12.02.2021 amounting to Rs.2899/- from the website of OP No.1. On receipt of the delivery, it was found that there was a some other jacket of other brand which was old piece of wrong brand and wrong colour. Complainant made several requests 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 any sufficient causes. He further argued that there was a return policy of fifteen days of the receipt of the product but OPs failed to opt the said policy and prayed for allowing the same. 

10.           Per-contra, learned counsel for OPs argued that OP no.1 is an online market place and provides only a platform for different sellers to sell their products and for different buyers to access and purchase amongst variety of goods offered by various sellers. He further argued that the OP no.1 is only that of a facilitator/intermediary and it does not have any control over the transaction between the Merchant/Seller, courier agency and the buyer/customer. OP no.2 denies the allegation of wrong delivery of the product in the sealed packbox as it was received from the manufacturer/distributor within time.  OP no.3 delivered the product in question to the complainant intact as it was picked by the seller and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint

11.           Admittedly the complainant had placed an order for purchase for U.S. Polo ASSN Full sleeve slip men jacket, blue colour with the OP no.1,

12.           It is evident from the copy of invoice Ex.C2 that complainant had ordered U.S. Polo ASSN Full sleeve slip men jacket, blue colour with the OP no.1 through OP no.1 and this fact has not been denied by the OP no.1. The grievance of the complainant is that he received a some other jacket of other brand which was old piece of wrong brand and wrong colour and due to that he made many complaints to OPs but OPs did not accept the request of complainant. It is evident from order details Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, complainant sent the request for return of the product in question but OPs cancelled the refund request of complainant.

13.           During the course of arguments, complainant had shown the videography clip in his mobile where the colour of the jacket is in red colour not blue as per order of the complainant. Thus, the complainant has sent the wrong brand and wrong colour, which was not ordered by the complainant. Thus, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

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 and by merely saying that OP No.1 has no responsibility, the OP No.1 cannot escape from its liability. Hence,p this plea taken by OP No.1 has no force.

15.           As per the invoice Ex.C3, the complainant had purchased U.S.Polo ASSN. Full Sleeve Solikd Men Jackert for an amount of Rs.2899/-, hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.2899/- alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses, etc.

16.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs no.1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.2899/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization.  We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.2500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.2200/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Both the OPs are jointly severally liable. The complainant is also directed to return the product in question to the OPs. Complaint qua OP no.3 stands dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:20.04.2023                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

           Member                         Member