Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/140/2023

SHIVANSHU - Complainant(s)

Versus

FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Jai Kishan

26 Apr 2024

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 140 of 2023

                                         DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 06.10.2023

                                                   DATE OF ORDER:          26.04.2024

 

Shivanshu  R/o Village Beejna, PO Jawa, District Charkhi Dadri, Haryana 127310

 

            ……………Complainant.

VERSUS               

Flipkart Internet Private Limited, R/o Flipkart Internet Private Limited Building Alyssa, Begonia & clover, Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Debarabeesanahalli village, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560103.

………….. Opposite Party.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

 

 

BEFORE: -    Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

 Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

 

Present:-      Sh. Jai Kishan, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Deepanshu Tuteja, Advocate for OP

ORDER:-

 

1.           In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 13.06.2023 the complainant ordered  Mivi  Fort S16 Soundbar with 2 full range drivers, Made in India 16 W Bluetooth  Soundbar, from the website/ of the Flipkart for an amount of Rs. 1,499/- order ID – OD328353037246231100. Complainant returned this order for which OP issued a credit note on dated 22.06.2023. Then OP sent another piece against the same order (order ID- OD328353037246231100) (invoice no. FAIFQO2400090621). This order was also returned by complainant for which OP issued a credit note on dated 27.06.2023. The complainant had received this order AIRMEN MESS AIR FORCE STATION DARJIPURA VADODARA. Due to not liking, OP sent another order to complainant. Complainant refused to take that order from the delivery boy and asked the delivery boy to take it back. The delivery boy took the order with him and said that your order has been returned and you will have to give OTP and by misleading he got the OTP and when complainant checked the order status it was showing delivered. It is further alleged that complainant contacted to the delivery boy for this and also talked to the manager of the delivery company that when you have taken back my order then why is it showing as delivered but they did not give any satisfactory reply. Complainant also contacted to opposite party repeatedly but not getting any satisfactory response. It is further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Op, the complainant has to suffer physical harassment and mental agony.  Thus with these allegations,  the OPs should have refund the amount  of Rs. 1,499/- Further the compensation  of Rs. 50,000/- on account of pain, harassment and sufferings and Rs.15,000/- as litigation fees were sought  by the complainant.
2.           Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and submitted that the Flipkart Internet Private Limited is a company, which is engaged in online trading/selling over the internet through its website www.flipkart.com. It is averred that the answering opposite party provides online market place platform to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions with an aim to boost electronic commerce for various goods for buyers and sellers enabling them to deal in various categories of goods but not limited to mobiles, camera, computers, watches, clothes, footwear, healthcare and personal products, home appliances and electronics etc. According to OP, the responsibility to deliver the products does not lie upon the answering opposite party, but it is upon the seller under the warranty clause.

It is further submitted that opposite party only provides an online platform where third party sellers sell their products and visitors/buyers purchase such products from the respective sellers on the website/app out of their own free will and choice. It is pertinent to mention here that advertisement with regard to price, specification, quality and description etc. are listed by the manufacturer of the product only and not by the opposite party. Opposite party only acts as an intermediary through its web interface www.flipkart.com and provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their product(s) to the users of the Flipkart Platform. It is submitted that these sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by different persons/stakeholders. The product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by opposite party who has no role in providing warranty or return/refund of the product. It is the sole duty of the manufacturer and seller, who were not even impleaded as a necessary party, to remove the defects, if any to the entire satisfaction of the customer. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.            Ld.  Counsel for the Complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence on dated 06.03.2024.
4.           Ld. counsel for the opposite party made a statement on 06.03.2024 that written statement filed be read in his evidence.
5.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6.           As per the complainant he had placed an order on 13.06.2023 for purchasing Mivi  Fort S16 Soundbar with 2 full range drivers, Made in India 16 W Bluetooth  Soundbar   for Rs. 1,499/- through the OP. The item was delivered, but returned by the complainant for which credit note dated 22.06.2023 was issued. The item was delivered again and it was returned again for which credit note dated 27.06.2023 was issued. The item was dispatched through OP once again, third time. But this time, the complainant refused to take delivery of the item. But the delivery boy managed to get OTP from the complainant. Resultantly, the item was recorded delivered to the complainant by the delivery boy. But the complainant had not received the same. The complainant raised concern with the delivery boy and his Manager, but no action was taken by them. The OP is being an intermediatary has assisted the complaint on each and every occasion, but could not satisfy the complainant.
7.           In the light of above-mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant has suffered because of delivery boy who had cheated the complainant by not delivering the item and taking the item back and shown the same delivered in records. Now question arises who is responsible for the negligency and fraud of the delivery boy. In our opinion the OP is responsible for the same, as the complaint has no direct relation with the delivery boy. It is well known fact that for the act of the subordinate, the principal is responsible.  Accordingly, we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
8.            In  view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed and an award is passed against the OP as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.1,499/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.
2. The complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand only) for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,000/-(Rs.Two Thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

9.           This order be complied within 45 days from the date of decision, failing which OP shall be liable to pay further interest @9% p.a. from the date of decision till its realization to the complainant.
10.           This complaint is hereby allowed accordingly as indicated above.
11.           This order be communicated to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record-room.

Announced in open Commission:

26.04.2024