D.O.F: 8/08/2017
D.O.O: 14/03/2019
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.160/17
Dated this, the 14th day of March 2019
PRESENT:
SRI.ROY PAUL :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
Prof. Louis Victor D’Rose
S/o Dr. Lancelott D’Rose :Complainant
1/192 ANaikayum Thattu, Parappa, Pin 506134
Kasaragod
Flipkart Internet Private Limited
Essae Vashnavi Summit, No 6/B, 7the main, 80Ft. Road
3rd Block,Koramangala Industrial layout, :Opposite Party
Bangalore Pin 560034 Karnataka
(Adv:Naveen Shankar.A)
ORDER
SRI.ROY PAUL :PRESIDENT
This complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act is for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-as compensation and cost to the Complainant.
The gist of the complaint is that:-
The Complainant purchased a mobile phone Spice X life worth Rs. 2,740/- from Opposite Party through his friend one Mr. Sreeraj in month of October 2016. But the Mobile Phone delivered by the Opposite Party was defective one. So the Complainant sought refund of payment from the Opposite Party. But the Opposite Party was not ready for refund the price. Due to the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party, the Complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony loss of time and money. Hence the complaint.
The Opposite Party entered appearance before the Fora and submitted their written version Opposite Party contended that they are not the seller of the goods. Manufacturer of the product is a necessary party in the proceedings. Flipkart is an electronic platform for sellers and customers. The Complainant is not a consumer since the Mobile phone was booked by a third party. As per the Company Policy there is no provision for refund, but for replacement only. The Complainant was not ready for the same. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the rival contentions in the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?
3. Whether the complaint is entitled for any reliefs?
4. Reliefs and costs?
The evidence consists of the documentary evidence adduced from the side of the Complainant as Exhibits A1 to A8 documents. The document marked on the side of the Opposite Party was Ext.B1 to B5
For the sake of the convenience, the Issue No. 1 to 4 is taken together for consideration.
ISSUE No.1 to 4:
As per the section 2(1)(d)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act the beneficiary of the service also termed as a Consumer. Here the Mobile phone was booked and purchased through Sreeraj for the Complainant. Apart to that the Complainant avered that the payment for the Phone was from his pocket. Ext B2, B5, A2 and A8 documents also reveals the relationship between the Complainant and Opposite Party. So we are of the considered view that the Complainant is a “ consumer “ under Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complaint is maintainable before the Fora. We the Fora referred the citation CPJ 2000 (1) NC 356 also for the said purpose. So Issue No.1 found in favour of the Complainant and answered accordingly.
Here the sale consideration was paid to the Opposite Party. The Complainant has no direct access to the manufacturer; the goods were delivered to the customer by the Opposite Party. We the Fora referred Ext. B4documentalso for the said purpose. In Ext. B4 it is also avered about return policy of products within a specified period. Admittedly the product was delivered to the customer on 21-10-2016 and customer sought refund on 27-10-2016 i.e., within one week. In Ext. B5 the Opposite Party informed that the seller offered replacement on 26-10-2016. So it is clear that the Complainant sought refund within 7 days after the delivery of phone. So we hold that the Complainant is entitled for the refund of the price from the Opposite Party. Non refund of amount even after repeated demand amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence Issue No.2 answered against the Opposite Party.
As discussed above the Complainant is entitled for refund of the price from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is liable to make arrangements to facilitate the same from the seller. From the foregoing discussions and findings we hold that the Opposite Party is liable to refund Rs.2,740/- with interest @12% per annum from the date of complaint along with Rs.3,000/- as compensation cum litigation cost to the complainant. Thus the Issue No.3 and 4 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite Party to refund Rs 2,740/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date complaint (08-08-2017) to the Complainant along with Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation cum litigation cost within30 days of receipt of the order. On receipt of the said payments the Complainant is liable to return the mobile phone with accessories and cover to the Opposite Party This order is executable under the provision of Consumer protection Act 1986.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1.Affidavit
A2. Legal notice Dt: 23/05/2017
A3. Policies
A4. Postal Acknowledgment Card.
A5. Invoice
A6.Postal receipt
A7.Postal Acknowledgment card
A8. Reply Notice
B1.Invoice
B2.Legal Notice
B3.copy of press note 3 issued by DIPP
B4. A copy of Terms of use of Website WWW.Flipkart.com
B5. A letter issued by Flipkart Dt:30/05/2017
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
