Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/331/2020

Shubham S/o Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Private Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Lal Singh Saini

29 Nov 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

 Complaint No.331 of 2020

 Date of Instt.:22.09.2020

 Date of Decision:29.11.2021

 

Shubham, aged 21 yerars, son of Sh.Rakesh Kumar resident of village Saini Majra, P.O.Thol, Tehsil Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra, Mob. 94161-59287

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                              Versus

 

1.Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Vaishnavi, Summit No.6/B, 7^th Main,  80 feet , 3^rd Block Noramangala, Banglore, through its Managing Director.

 

2.Regd. Office, Bhathala Teletech Private Limited. 258, Gujrawala Town, Part-3^rd New Delhi – 110009.

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

                Complaint under Section  35 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

                   Ms.Neelam Member.

                 

Present:     Sh.Labh Singh Saini Advocate for the complainant.

                 Sh.Shekhar Kapoor Advocate for Ops.

ORDER

                  

                 This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Shubham   against Flipkart Interent etc -the opposite parties.

 

2.             The brief facts of the complaint  are that the complainant   on 30.08.2020 ordered for purchasing Thomson B9 Pro 80Cm (32 inch) HD Ready LED Smart TV (32M33277 Pro/32 M3277) from OP No.1 and the same was delivered on 5.9.2020 at the address of the complainant and the courier partner received Rs.9499/-  at the time of delivery in cash. It is further stated that on 8.9.2020 at the box was opened by the  Technician of JEEVES Company then it was found that the product which was ordered to be purchased by the complainant was not found the same i.e. Thomson B9 Pro  80Cm (32 inch) HD Ready LED Smart TV (32M3277 Pro/32M3277) but the another model i.e. THOMSON 32TM 3290, 80Cm HD LED TV was found in the  box.  The complainant objected to the technician that the product which was ordered to be purchased is not the same and you should not install it , ;then the technician of the respondents assured the complainant that after installation the complainant can made the request for replacement of the proper product and on the assurance of the technician, the complainant agreed for installation of the said product. After installation of the product, the complainant sent request to the Ops on 8.9.2020 for replacement of the LED and on the same day the complainant received a message through mobile No.94161-59287  “that return request received. Your return request for Thomson… from your order with order ID OD119564169910342000 has been received. We will give you an update  soon. Check the return status here http:/ / fkrt, it /d000QLRuuuuN, 1 SMS 2.24PM” .Thereafter  the complainant received a message on his mobile on 13.09.2020 “ Return  Update: Sorry the seller is unable to fulfill your return request for Thomson. From your with order ID OD119564169910342000. Please check your email for more detail. SMS 9.14AM” and thereafter the complainant made again request  to the OP which was replied by the OP on 16.09.2020 “ Return Update: Sorry request for Thomson. From your order with order ID OD119564169910342000. Please check your email for more detail. SMS 9.0AM”. And again the complainant made another request to the OP on 16.09.2020 which was replied by the OP “Technician Visit scheduled: Technician visit for Thomson B9 Pro 80 cm (32 inch) HD Ready LED Smart TV with Order ID OD119564169910342000 has been scheduled with our authorized partner Thomson. Your service request number for the same is AK1692507, Sept. 21, 2020, SMS 8.06PM “ and again OP sent a message “Return Update: Sorry, the seller is unable to fulfil your return request for Thomson from your order with order ID OD119564169910342000. Please check your email for more details SMS 6.09PM”.Thus it is alleged that ordered for Thomson B9 Pro 80Cm (32 inch) HD Ready LED Smart TV (32M33277 Pro/32 M3277) from OP No.1 but another model i.e. THOMSON 32TM 3290, 80Cm HD LED TV was found in the  box, which is deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.  Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for return of Rs. 9499/- cost of the said LED and compensation  for the mental harassment and agony caused to  him and the litigation expenses.

 

3.             Upon notice Ops appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant ordered one Thomson B9 32 inch HD ready LED Smart TV (herein after known as product through Answering OP as a matter of record as the complainant himself agreed that the answering OP is mere online intermediary. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the answering OP is neither a seller nor a manufacturer/producer/ service centre of the Product in this case. The product purchased by the complainant was manufactured by Thomson brand and also sold by a third party seller (who is not made as a necessary party by the complainant) registered  on Flipkart  platform.’ It is further submitted that answering OP 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. Further, it is submitted that advertisement with regard to price specification, quality and description etc are listed by the manufacturer of the product.  It is submitted that answering OP being an intermediary has assisted the complainant approached the answering OP.  It is submitted that the complainant has been mentioned that the product was found wrong when it was delivered to the complainant by the delivery man of the Logistics company and also he installed the said product in his house.  It  is submitted that  answering OP assisted the complainant on each and every occasion the complainant approached the answering OP just for  resolution of the alleged grievance of the complainant, OP rightly escalated the grievance of the complainant to the concerned authority i. e Seller of the product and reverted their  response to the complainant subsequently. However, it is interesting to note that even though aforementioned information was transmitted to the complainant by OP, when also he has concealed this  information in the content  to the complainant and as such  suspicious acts of the complainant is raising doubt in the mind of the OP. Thus, it is alleged that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

4.             The OP no.2 appeared and filed its separate written statement disputing the claim of the  complainant. It is submitted that the answering OP is carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by others. The answering OP is registered seller on the website “Flipkart.com and sells products of other manufacturers, traders etc. Under their respective trademarks through the website. The answering OP has acquired good market reputation for its range of products offered and for its exceptional customer support.  It is submitted that from a perusal of the complaint, it transpires that product was allegedly wrong from box when it was delivered to the complainant by the delivery man of the logistics company, in this regard with utmost sincerity it is submitted that the answering Ops categorically denied the allegations of wrong delivery of the product in the sealer pack box as it was received from the manufacturer/distributor within the time specified in the order. Hence, the statements made by the complainant needs cogent evidentiary proof thereof. The above statements by the complainant are completely wrong, bearing not an iota of truth whatsoever and merely made to mislead this Commission. It is submitted that the product was duly delivered by the answering OP to the complainant in a sealed box as it was received from the manufacturer/distributor within the time specified in the order. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically and preliminary objections regarding  suppression of material facts etc. and it was prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed as there is no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP.

 

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed his evidence.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that the complainant   on 30.08.2020 ordered for purchasing Thomson B9 Pro 80Cm (32 inch) HD Ready LED Smart TV (32M33277 Pro/32 M3277) from OP No.1 and the same was delivered on 5.9.2020 at the address of the complainant and the courier partner received Rs.9499/-  at the time of delivery in cash. It is further stated that on 8.9.2020 at the box was opened by the  Technician of JEEVES Company then it was found that the product which was ordered to be purchased by the complainant was not found the same i.e. Thomson B9 Pro  80Cm (32 inch) HD Ready LED Smart TV (32M3277 Pro/32M3277) but the another model i.e. THOMSON 32TM 3290, 80Cm HD LED TV was found in the  box.  The complainant objected to the technician that the product which was ordered to be purchased is not the same and you should not install it , ;then the technician of the respondents assured the complainant that after installation the complainant can made the request for replacement of the proper product and on the assurance of the technician, the complainant agreed for installation of the said product. After installation of the product, the complainant sent request to the Ops on 8.9.2020 for replacement of the LED and on the same day the complainant received a message through mobile No.94161-59287  “that return request received. Your return request for Thomson… from your order with order ID OD119564169910342000 has been received. We will give you an update  soon. Check the return status here http:/ / fkrt, it /d000QLRuuuuN, 1 SMS 2.24PM” . It is argued that thereafter  the complainant received a message on his mobile on 13.09.2020 “ Return  Update: Sorry the seller is unable to fulfill your return request for Thomson. From your with order ID OD119564169910342000. Please check your email for more detail. SMS 9.14AM” and thereafter the complainant made again request  to the OP which was replied by the OP on 16.09.2020 “ Return Update: Sorry request for Thomson.

6.             On the other hand  while reiterating the contentions made in the written statements, learned counsel for the Ops has argued that the OP were only an intermediary between buyers and sellers and could not be held responsible.  It was further argued that OP is registered seller on the website “Flipkart.com and sells products of other manufacturers, traders etc. Under their respective trademarks through the website. The answering OP has acquired good market reputation for its range of products offered and for its exceptional customer support.  It is submitted that from a perusal of the complaint, it transpires that product was allegedly wrong from box when it was delivered to the complainant by the delivery man of the logistics company, in this regard with utmost sincerity it is submitted that the answering Ops categorically denied the allegations of wrong delivery of the product in the sealer pack box as it was received from the manufacturer/distributor within the time specified in the order. Hence, the statements made by the complainant needs cogent evidentiary proof thereof.

 

7.     Purchasing of Thomson B9 Pro 80Cm (32 inch) HD Ready LED Smart TV (32M33277 Pro/32 M3277) from OP No.1 and the same was delivered on 5.9.2020 at the address of the complainant and the courier partner received Rs.9499/-  at the time of delivery in cash is not in dispute. But in the box sent to the complainant   instead of Thomson B9 Pro  80Cm (32 inch) HD Ready LED Smart TV (32M3277 Pro/32M3277) another model i.e. THOMSON 32TM 3290, 80Cm HD LED TV was found in the  box.  The complainant time and again requested for replacement of the TV in question but the Ops failed to replace the same or to refund the cost of the said TV to the complainant.  It is worthwhile to mention here that  the legislation of the Consumer Protection Act is in generous in nature but it does not give any liberty to anyone to get undue benefit.  In the present case the item which  was booked was not delivered, rather another type of model was given to the complainant. Flipkart  cannot be permitted to claim that it is providing purely gratuitous service to its customers without any consideration. It is certainly not the case that it is a charitable organization involved in e-commerce with no business returns for itself.  The online shopping portals could not   absolve themselves of responsibilities after delivering a product and that it was the bounded duty of the companies to satisfy their customers  because any consumer does not  give any liberty to usurp the money either by sending wrong items or defective product. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for Ops that the OPs were only an intermediary between buyers and sellers and could not be held responsible. Therefore, deficiency in services on the part of the Ops is amply proved and the Ops are liable to compensate the complainant.

 

                In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.5000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e 22.09.2020 till its actual realization to the complainant for deficiency in services on their part. The Ops are further directed to make the payment of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for the litigation expenses. The Ops are directed to make the compliance of this order jointly and severally. The Ops are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of preparation of the certified copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated 29.11.2021.                                                 President.

 

 

                                Member             Member.