ORDER

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. This consumer complaint is presented by the complainant named above alleging deficiency in service & unfair trade practice there on the part of the Ops for collecting excess price  than MRP (Maximum Retail Price) of the goods/product purchased online  from  their   e- commerce platform .
2. The complainant seeks for an order directing the Op to refund Rs. 10/- i.e the price charged excess than the MRP of the product  purchased and further prayed for  an award of compensation of 50,000/- towards suffering of mental agony and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost .
3. The facts as stated in the complaint petition and emerged from the documents filed there with necessary for adjudication of this consumer dispute are that:-the complainant has purchased a DYWER Solid Single Breasted Formal Men Blazer on Dt.19.12.2023 vide Order Id No. OD329981849048745100 of Rupees 2499/- form the opposite party No.1, being attracted on the offer of  40 % off i.e available  @ Rs.1,499/- with free Delivery and that,  after completion of  the same order suddenly the opposite party No.1 increased   rupees 10/- in addition to the  agreed cost of the same product subsequently. The  opposite party No.1 product to the complainant  through his delivery partner opposite party No.2 on dt.25.12.2023 which was received by the complainant form the delivery boy of opposite party No.2 and paid the additional charged of Rs.10/- through PhonePe Vide transaction ID T2312251051399979066587 .After received of the product the complainant  found that  the Tax Invoice tagged in the delivery packet is generated for Rs. 1,499/- only and no bill towards paid Rs.10/- is delivered to the complainant and, on being asked the OP2 remain silence .The complainant contact with the O.P No.1 but no avail which caused financial loss & mental agony to the complainant .Hence this complaint.
4. The complainant, to substantiate his pleadings has relied on & filed the following self attested documents:-

1. Screen shot of the product.
2. Screen shot of the product after increase price of Rs.10/-
3. Screen shot of the Money transfer receipt.
4. Original money receipt which was tagged in the product.
5. The averments of the complaint petition is supported by an affidavit of the complainant is taken in to consideration.

5. On being notice the Ops appeared through their learned counsel Sri.K.K.Behera and filed their respective written version denying allegation of the complaint on all its material particulars.
6. The Op 2/ e-kart Logistic filed their written version contending the facts that, it has no role in charging any amount from the complainant. He acts as a logistic partner only to facilitate logistic transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. The Opposite Party No. 2 provides the logistic services, by picking up the Seal packed product from Seller and delivering it to the buyer in intact condition as it was picked from the seller. The Opposite Party No. 2 picks the sealed packed product from the seller and delivers it to the buyer without altering/opening/damaging/tempering the packaging on the box. In the instant matter also, the Opposite Party No. 2 duly delivered the product at the address specified by the complainant itself, in intact condition as it was provided by the seller. The Opposite party has not entered into any business transaction with the Complainant. Thus the Opposite Party No. 2 does not associate itself with any averment made by the complainant. Further it is submitted that, the complainant has failed to produce any concrete evidence in support of his averments made against the Opposite Party No. 2. Thus, there is no cause of action present against the Opposite Party No. 2 in the instant complaint.
7. The Op 2 further submits that, in the present complaint, the complainant has not levied any substantial allegation against the Opposite Party No. 2. The Opposite Party No. 2 being mere a logistic service provider, is not liable for the content of the parcel handed over to the complainant in a seal packed condition. The Complainant in his complaint nowhere alleged any kind of tampering with the parcel and that means the same parcel was handed over to the complainant as it was received from the seller of the product. That the Complainant has failed to establish any cause of action under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, against the Opposite Party No. 2 in the present Complaint, and hence, the relief claimed under the present Complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite Party No. 2.
8. The Op2 also cited judgements of Apex court passed in 'SGS India Ltd.Vs Dolphin International Ltd.,' Civil Appeal No. 5759 of 2009 order dated 06.10.2021, Rauneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Anr.MANU/Sc/0707/1999: (2000) 1 SCC 66, to substantiate there submission that, the initial burden of proof of deficiency in service is there on the complainant.
9. The op1/ Flipkart internet Pvt. Ltd. failed to file their written version within the stipulated period of time as prescribed under C.P.Act 2019.The written version filed at belated stage has not taken in to consideration in view of judgment dt.04/03/2020 of the Honourable Supreme Court of India passed in New India Assurance Company vrs. Hilli Multi Purposes Cold Storage Ltd. However, the Op1 has taken part in the hearing of this complaint.
10. Learned counsel for the Op1/ Flipkart internet Pvt present submits that, Op1 acts only as an intermediary through its web interface www.flipkart.com  and provides a medium to various seller all over India to offer for sale and, sell their to the users of the Flipkart Platform. The product purchased by the complainant is sold by an independent seller through the Flipkart Plotform of the OP1 and the Flipkart internet Pvt/ op1 has no role in listing of product specification, price or discount for the product listed by the sellers and that, alleged product is purchased from third party seller i.e from Woolen Anas Garment & Sons which clearly proved from the Tax invoice relied by the complainant as such said Woolen Anas Garment & Sons is a necessary party in absence whom this complainant is to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party. It is further submitted that, the price mentioned in the Tax invoice of the product purchased is the accurate amount of Maximum Retail Price(MRP)  of the product which clearly shows that ,the price is charged by the third party seller .The price of Rs.10/- has been charged separately as handling charged and not a part of MRP of the product and a separate Invoice was raised in this regard vide annexure -1 of their written version. The complainant has never raised any grievance before the Op1 rather, agreed to pay the said handling charge. There is no cause of action arose to present this complainant. The Op 1/ Flipkart internet Pvt is an intermediary to facilitate sale transaction between independent third party seller and independent end customers. These sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by different person/stakeholders. Consumer protection (E-commerce ) Rule 2020 has clearly distinguished marketplace E-commerce platform from the seller of goods. Thus, for any act of seller, the marketplace E-commerce platform or its operating entity cannot be held liable. In the given facts & circumstances, no relief sought against the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt can be granted rather, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. Heard. Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the respective submission of the parties.

DISCUSSION.

12. Here in this case, the whole grievance of the complaint is with respect to alleged excess amount charged than the MRP (Maximum Retail Price) of the product purchased by the complainant on line in the marketplace E-commerce platform of Op1/www.flipkart.com.
13. The complainant has filed an additional evidence affidavit and proved the contention of his complaint petition that, he has purchased a DYWER Solid Single Breasted Formal Men Blazer/the product  on Dt.19.12.2023 vide Order Id No. OD329981849048745100 of Rupees 2499/- form the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt being attracted on the offer of  40 % off i.e available @ Rs.1,499/- with free delivery and that, said purchased product was delivered to him  on dt.25.12.2023 which was received by the complainant form the delivery boy of Op 2/ e-kart Logistic paying the  additional charged of Rs.10/- through PhonePe Vide transaction ID T2312251051399979066587 and that, after  received of the product he found that  the Tax Invoice tagged in the delivery packet is generated for Rs. 1,499/- only and that, no bill towards paid Rs.10/- is delivered to the complainant and on being asked the Op 2/ e-kart Logistic remain silence and that, the  complainant contact with OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt but no avail which caused financial loss & mental agony to the complainant remain un-rebutted .
14. Nothing material is placed there on the record to hold that, online market place service provided by OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt to the customer (here the complainant), by introducing third party seller and for successful transaction has been provided free of cost. Rather ,OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt has admitted the facts that, they have collected Rs10/ towards handling charges. As such, it may not be discarded that, the Op1 & 2 are the service provider rather, squarely comes under the definition of service provider as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and that, the complainant is their consumer. It may not be disputed that, the Op1  has introduced the 3^{rd p}arty sellers in its e-commerce platform to the consumer /complainant and assured for a successful transaction for delivery of product  as such, submission of OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt that,there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt is not acceptable. The OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt is an electronics service provider comes under the definition of sec 2( 17) of C.P Act 2019.
15. It is not disputed that,  the complainant got delivery of the product and there is nothing alleged on the quality /quantity/potency/purity or standard  of the product as such this commission hold no negligence or defiant service there on the part of the Op 2/ e-kart Logistic.
16. There is no dispute that, the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt is providing e-commerce platform and introduced many sellers to the complainant knowingly enough the nature and credibility of the sellers. The OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt is a repute company providing e-commerce platform and we are unable to belief that, the complainant could not have placed reliance only on the O.P1 before placement of his order. As such, we are of the opinion that, for any omission & commission of the third party seller or  logistic service provider/op2  there through the e-commerce platform resulting  any injury to the consumer/complainant, the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt shall be  solely  liable to compensate the complainant. However, the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt is at liberty to reimburse the cost & consequences of this complaint from the concern Third     Party Seller or the logistic service provider/OP2. Hence, submission the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt that, complainant is bad for non -joinder of party is not acceptable.
17. As per Rule 4(5) of the Consumer Protection (e-Commerce ) Rule 2020 ,the O.P1, being an e-commerce entity is duty bound to redress the complaint through a redressal mechanism within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint but here the O.P1 has appeared in this case and filed their  written version shifting  its liability to the Third Party Seller. No grievance officers has been appointed by the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt to settle the grievance of the complainant and it is lingering before this Commission which is also a clearly prove the  negligence& deficient services there  on the part of the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt towards its consumer /here the complainant.
18. It is proved through the affidavit evidence of the complainant that, the complainant has purchased the subject product of Rupees 2499/- in the e-commerce platform of the Op1 being attracted on the offer of  40 % off i.e available  @ Rs.1,499/- with free delivery .However, it is not disputed rather, admitted the facts that, the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt has collected additional charged of Rs.10/- through PhonePe Vide transaction ID T2312251051399979066587 from the complainant towards handling charge  at the point of delivery  overturning  from their promise of free delivery clearly proved unfair trade practice there on the part of the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt.
19. Nothing material placed on the record to  hold that, that the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt. has ever served invoice/money receipt towards receiving of said handling charges of Rs.10/ though they have filed it with their written version. As such this Commission is of the opinion that, non  issue of bill/money receipt for the goods sold or services render clearly attribute unfair trade practice there on the part of the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt
20. This Commission is of the opinion that, collection of handling charges of Rs.10/ at the delivery point falsely assuring free delivery of product purchased in their e-commerce platform and non delivering bill/money receipt & non mentioning of said additional handling charges there in the Tax Invoice of the product purchased squarely proved unfair trade practice there on the part of the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt certainly caused financial burden & mental agony to the complainant cannot be denied as such the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt is liable to compensate the complainant adequately .
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Commission is  of the opinion that, the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt indulged in Unfair Trade Practice & deficient in service which caused financial loss, mental agony & harassment to the complainant as such the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt is liable to compensate the complainant adequately .  However, the claim of the complainant is at higher side .Hence, this consumer Complain is partly allowed on with the following directions:-

ORDER

The O.P1(one)/ Flipkart Internet Pvt.Ltd is  hereby directed to  refund Rs. 10/- i.e. the price collected towards Handling Charges of the product purchased in their  e-commerce platform . and further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards sufferings of mental agony caused to  the complainant for their deficient service & the Unfair Trade Practice, which includes the cost of this litigation , within 30  days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the OP1/ Flipkart Internet Pvt shall  liable to pay Rs.100/-  per day as delayed compensation to the complainant till compliance of this order.

        Dictated and corrected by me.

                        Sd/-             

                     President

                                      I agree                       

                                                           Sd/-

                                                        Member

          Pronounced in open Commission today on this 18^th day of December, 2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

         Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order receipt from this Commission. Order accordingly.