DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 190  of  2021

 

Sri Sourab Deb,

S/O- Sri Sarajit Ch. Deb, 

Barjala, Airport Road,

P.O. Barjala, P.S.- West Agartala,

District-West Tripura-799002. ........Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

Flipkart Internet Private Ltd.,

Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & 

Clove Embassy Tech Village,

Outer Ring Road Devarabee-

Sanahalli village, Bengaluru- 560103, 

Karnataka, India.

CIN:- U51109KA2012PTC066107.  .........Opposite Party.

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant  : Sri Rajib Goswami,

  Learned Advocate. 

 

For the O.Ps : Sri Dipankar Das,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

ORDER   DELIVERED  ON:  28/02/2023.

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

This complaint U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been filed by Sri Sourab Deb of Barjala, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.P. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 

 

2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant ordered one book, Income Tax & Law Practice(assessment year 2020-21) on 5th October, 2021   by paying Rs.50/- as advance through online payment(BHIM) for the purpose of cash on delivery. The price of the book was Rs.700(selling price Rs.550/- and shipping fee Rs.150) which he had to pay on delivery of the said book. On 23rd October, 2021 the O.P. cancelled the delivery of the said book without notification.  On query  the O.P. informed that due to logistic problem  the order was cancelled. Hence charged Rs.30/- as cancellation charge and refunded Rs.20/- on 02.11.2021. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission praying for adequate compensation for  loss sustained by him, for mental agony and harassment due to deficiency in service claiming Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

 

3. O.P. resisted the claim of the complainant denying the allegation made by the complainant in his complaint petition. It is the submission of the O.P that the O.P. is an intermediary between the service providers and the customers and does not have any interference in the modus operandi or working of merchants/service providers an the liability for any changes, deficiencies related to the service provided by the  service providers. They are merely a facilitator of services on behalf of the third party service providers. It is further stated in the written objection that as the O.P. is merely an intermediary  they are not liable for the product delivered to the complainant and the same is also clearly an exemption under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

 

4. As per Information Act, 2000 under Sub-clause of Section 79 the liability of an intermediary in the following manner: 

''Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-section(2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable to any third party information, data, or communication link hosted by him''. It is also stated by the O.P. that Section 5(1) of the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 provides for exemption to marketplace e-commerce entity under sub-section 1 of the Section 79 which complies with sub-section(2) and (3) of that section. The complaint filed by the complainant is baseless and there is no deficiency in service and the O.P. prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition. 

 

 

5. On the basis of the complaint petition, written objection filed by the O.P. and the evidences produced by the complainant following points are emerge for discussion and decision.

(i) Whether the O.P. can be held to be responsible for such unilateral cancellation of the order and consequent deficiency in service?

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to  any compensation and if so to what extent?

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-

6. It can not be concluded that from 5th October to 18th October, 2021 i.e., the date of booking the book and the date of cancellation of the order, the complainant was prevented from taking his preparation in Income Tax Law & Practice.

7. The complainant paid Rs.50/- as advance for purchasing the book. But the O.P. refunded Rs.20/- to the complainant and charged Rs.30/- as cancellation charge although the complainant did not cancel the order.

8. The O.P. in page No. 9 of their written objection interalia stated that the O.P. can not be held liable for such cancellation of the order as the O.P. is just an intermediary  between the seller and the buyer.

9. This stand of the O.P. is not acceptable because, the O.P. entered into a contract with the complainant to reach the book to the complainant and for that the complainant paid fees to the O.P. In fact the complainant never entered into any agreement with the publisher/seller of the book. Rather, the O.P. acted on behalf of the publisher/seller. Hence, the O.P. can not charge any fee as the complainant did not get any service from the O.P.

10. We considered the total suffering and loss of the complainant, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and suffering which is not very huge in extent. However, the unilateral cancellation of the order by the O.P. was unjust without assigning any reason whatsoever which tentamounts to deficiency in service.

Both the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

11. In the result, considering the trivial loss and suffering of the complainant we direct the O.P. to return the complainant the balance amount of Rs.30/- with a further charge of Rs.500/- within two months from today, failing which it shall carry interest @ 7.5% P.A. from today till the date of actual payment.

  The case stands disposed off. 

Supply a copy of this Final Order free of cost to the complainant and the Opposite party.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.