Orissa

Cuttak

CC/223/2022

Dr Sunil Kumar Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 Jul 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.223/2022

 

          Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath,

           S/O:SimanchalRath,Plot No.3C/876,

           Sector-10,CDA,Cuttack-753014.                                 ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

                        FlipKart Internet Pvt.Ltd.,

                           Located at:BuildingAlyssa,Begonia& Clover,

                           Embassy Tech Over, Outer Ring Road,

                           Devarabeesanahalli,Village:Benhaluru,

                           Bangalore-560103.                                                       ....Opp. Party.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    03.11.2022

Date of Order:  11.07.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Self.

For the O.P    :                  Mr. S.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the O,P had sold a damaged King bed though he had taken cash of Rs,12,499/- from him on 5.7.2022 vide order  bearing no.OD125386890364019000.  On installation of the said King bed on 24.8.2022, it was observed that the same was a damaged piece.  Immediately thereafter, the matter was reported to the O.P followed by a legal notice to him on 30.9.2022.But when the O.P remained silent to all the repeated persuasions of the complainant in order to resolve the issue, the complainant has come up with this case before this Commission seeking refund of his money to the tune of Rs.12,499/- from the O.P together with a compensation of Rs.35,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment as caused to him.  He has also prayed for the cost of his litigation.  He has further prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

Together with the complaint petition, the complainant has filed copy of the tax invoice showing the price of the King bed of Rs.12,499/- paid through the O.P and copy of the legal notice dtd.309.2022.

2.       The O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein he has mentioned that the complainant had suppressed the material facts and had tried to mislead this Commission and had also wrongfully impleaded the O.P in this case for which the O.P has prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition, it being not maintainable.  The O.P admits through his written version that it is only an online intermediary which provides common platform to the buyer and the intermediary third-party seller including the present case.  The O.P has submitted that the seller of the product had provided 10 days replacement policy. The complainant had purchased the product which was sold to him by the third-party independent seller on 5.7.2022 which was delivered to the complainant on 24.7.2022.  The complainant had raised the grievance regarding defective product on 26.7.22.  The grievance of the complainant was duly intimated to the seller of the product who had arranged a technician to visit and inspect the product on 31.7.2022 and thereafter the return of the product was approved by the technician.  The product was thereafter replaced and a brand-new piece was delivered to the complainant on 22.8.2022 which was installed on 23.8.22.  The O.P had duly performed his responsibility as intermediary.  But the complainant had again raised complaint on 23.8.22 to the O.Psregarding improper installation but the same was rejected by the seller since because the technician had cited,“issue is resolved”.  The O.P submits through his written version that the present case of the complainant is only abuse of the process of law.  Thus, according to the O.P, it is only his role as an intermediary who had provided online platform to the present complainant as well as to the seller of the product of this case and accordingly it is prayed by the O.P to dismiss the complaint petition with exemplary cost and to pass order as may be deemed fit and proper.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

The O.P has also filed evidence on affidavit through one Sanchita Chhabra daughter of Arun Chhabra and when the contents of the said evidence affidavit is perused, it is noticed that the sameis only reiteration of the contents of the written version.

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments as made in the complaint petition and that in the written version of the O.P, it is noticed that the complainant had infact placed order through the O.P on 5.7.2022 for a King bed and had paid cash of Rs.12,499/- for the said purpose.  It is not in dispute that the bed was delivered through the O.P on 24.8.2022.  It is also not in dispute that the said King bed was a defective one for which the complainant had intimated the fact to the O.P but as mentioned by the O.P in his written version that after getting the order for the King bed from the complainant on 5.7.2022, the same was delivered to the complainant on 24.7.2022 and the complainant had raised his grievance before the O.P on 26.7.2022 that the said King bed was defective.  Accordingly, the technician had visited and had inspected the King bed of the complainant and had approved for its return on 31.7.2022 for which a brand-new King bed was replaced on 22.8.22 which was installed on 23.8.2022.  This averment as regards to the delivery of the King bed to the complainant on 24.7.2022 and being replaced on 22.8.2022 and also about the technician approving the return of the defective bed on 31.7.2022 has not been stated by the complainant in his complaint petition.  The O.P has not filed any scrap of document to prove such averments of him before this Commission. He has also not called for the technician concerned who had inspected the defective King bed of the complainant and had approved its return on 31.7.22 and that by virtue of the report of the said technician who had mentioned about the “issue is resolved” the claim of the complainant to return the defective King bed on 23.8.22 was rejected.  Thus, in absence of such cogent evidence/documents it can never concluded here by this Commission that infact the O.P had acted and had responded promptly to the grievance of the complainant as and when made.  In absence of such credible evidence, this Commission comes to a conclusion that infact the O.P is deficient in his service as well as had practised unfair trade by not resolving the issue when the complainant raised his grievance on 23.8.2022 requesting for the replacement of the defective King bed as provided to him.  This issue, thus goes in favour of the complainant.

 

Issues no.i& iii.

From the above discussions, the case of the complainant is found to be maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;      

                                              ORDER

Case is decreed on contest against the O.P.  The O.P is thus directed to refund to the complainant the cost of the King bed i.e. Rs.12,499/- alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of order i.e. 5.7.2022 till the amount is quantified.  The O.P is also directed to pay him a sum of R.35,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 11^th  day of   July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                       President

 

                     

                                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member