Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/557/2023

GURBACHAN KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

FLIPKART Internet PRIVATE LTD - Opp.Party(s)

AGAMPREET SINGH

01 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/557/2023
Date of Institution	:	1.12.2023
Date of Decision	:	01/07/2024

 

Gurbachan Kaur w/o Gurparmit Singh R/o House No. 3477, Sector 35-D Chandigarh (PIN-160022)

Complainant

Versus

 

Flipkart Internet Private Ltd., Buildings Alyssa, Begonia and Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India PIN-560103.  Through its Authorized Representative

Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Agampreet Singh, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  the OP is a leading
   e-commerce platform engaged in the selling of a wide variety of goods including  electronics, home essentials, lifestyle products etc.  On  1.10.2023, the complainant purchased one Party Red Clutch  for women  (hereinafter to be referred as subject product) through the platform of OP vide invoice Annexure A-1 sold by ZAPKAP India  for a sum of Rs.245/-.  However the complainant was shocked to see the product when the same was received by the complainant as it was found that the product Annexure A-2 received  was totally different from the originally ordered subject product Annexure A-3 in its entire design.  Intimation qua the said changed product delivered to the complainant was also given to the OP but the OP  asked the complainant to pay extra refund fee of Rs.25/-  and only then the replacement of the product could be made possible.  In this manner, by sending firstly the different product which was never ordered by the complainant and thereafter asking the complainant to pay extra Rs.25/- as refund fee amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of fact, non-joinder of necessary party and also that the answering OP has been dragged unnecessary into the instant litigation. It  is alleged that in fact the complainant had purchase the subject product from ZapKap Casual Party Red Clutch  through online platform of the answering OP and the answering OP only facilitates its platform. Moreover, the answering OP is neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the product and the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP and the complainant could seek relief against the manufacturer and seller of the subject product. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the  complainant had placed online order for the purchase of ZapKap Casual Party Red Clutch  through the platform of the OP  and transferred an amount of Rs.245/- for the subject product as is also evident from Annexure A-1 and she received a different product as shown in Annexure A-2 than the originally ordered product as shown in Annexure A-3 and  despite the requests made by the complainant the subject product was neither replaced nor paid amount was refunded to the complainant till date, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service  and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for or if the complaint being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OP.
   2. In order to prove her case the complainant  has proved on record Annexure A-1 the invoice  which clearly indicates that an amount of Rs.245/- was paid by the complainant through UPI for the subject product through the platform of OP No.1. Annexure A-2  is the  photograph of the product received by the complainant, which clearly indicates that the same was totally different from the originally ordered product as shown in Annexure A-3. Annexure A-4  is the  order details which clearly indicates  that the OP has confirmed the order placed by the complainant and the same has been delivered to the complainant on 8^th October.
   3. As it stands proved on record from the aforesaid evidence led by the complainant which is unrebutted by the OP that the complainant had placed the order  through the platform of the OP and made payment of Rs.245/- for the subject product in question and the subject product was received by the complainant was totally different from the originally ordered product as is also evident from  Annexure A-2 and A-3 and further till date the OP has  neither replaced the product nor refunded the price thereof to the complainant, hence, the aforesaid act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP and t he OP being the service provider cannot escape from its liability.
   4. So far as the defence OP that it is neither the manufacturer of the product nor the seller and as such there is no cause of action against it  is concerned,  as it stands proved on record that the complainant had, in fact, placed the subject  order for the subject product by paying an amount of ₹245/- through OP i.e. an e-commerce entity and the OP had not supplied/delivered the original subject product, which was ordered by complainant, rather they had supplied a different product i.e. the delivered product, the said act clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Further, as the complainant had requested the OP several times to refund the amount paid and the same has not been refunded by the OP, till date, the said act also amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when OP was supposed to supply the subject product which was ordered by the complainant. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹245/-  to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint till onwards.
2. to pay composite amount of ₹3000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and towards cost of litigation;

 

5. This order be complied with by the  OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr. No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/07/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member