Punjab

Sangrur

RBT/CC/18/422

Ragini Kalra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Bharbhur Singh

20 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                              Complaint No.  RBT/CC/422/2018

  Instituted on:    23.10.2018

                                                               Decided on:     20.09.2022

 

Ragini Kalra aged about 20 years, daughter of Sh. Manoj Kumar Kalra, resident of House No.1763-A, Near New Shani Devi Mandir, Rajpura Town, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. No.42/1&43, Kacherakanahalli, Village Jadigenahali Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru 560067 through its Managing Director.

2.     Savan Retailers Private Limited, Bilaspur Pataudi Road, Near Bilaspur Chowk, NH8, Opp. Tata Service Centre, Bilaspur, Haryana India 122413 through its Managing Director.

3.     Savan Retailers Private Limited, 11/29, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi Central Deli, New Delhi, India-116060 through its Authorised Representative.

4.     Instakart Service Private Limited, Plot No.33, Chora Bazar, Near Jassa Singh Gurudwara, Rajpura, Punjab 140401 through its Authorised Representative.

             ….Opposite parties

For complainant         : Shri Bharpur Singh, Adv.              

For OP 1&4               : Shri Bhimanshu, Adv.

          For OP   2 &3                : Shri Ravinder Singh, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL:    PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                          :    MEMBER

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.        

1.             Arguments through video conferencing heard. This complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala in view of orders of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh vide endorsement number 10226 of 26.11.2021.

2.             Complainant  has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties  on the ground that the complainant placed an online order of Redmi Note 5 Pro colour blue  bearing product number Handsets/WU83446/MI, HSN: 85171290 with the OPs for Rs.13,499/- vide invoice number FABBER1900308557 dated 20.7.2018 online through  OP number 1. The order was placed successfully.     It was assured by the OP number 1 that the mobile set shall be delivered shortly.  The case of complainant is that he received one parcel from the OPs on 22.07.2018 and after receiving the parcel from OPs, the complainant opened the same and found that some other dead mobile phone make Micromax colour black instead of Redmi note 5 Pro in the said parcel. Further case of complainant is that the complainant immediately contacted the OP company through customer care and made a return request and the OPs assured the complainant to resolve the problem, but despite repeated requests the mobile in question was not replaced. Thus,  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.13,499/- alongwith interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the OP number 1 is the registered company under the Companies Act, 1956, that the OP number 1 does not sell any products to end consumers, that there is no dispute with the OP. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had not purchased the product from the company OP number 1 and the other allegations leveled therein have also been denied.

4.             In reply filed by OPs number 2 and 3, it is stated that both the companies are same and it is stated that they are not selling any goods manufactured or products on its own. In the present case, it is denied that the complainant received the old mobile phone of Micromax in the said parcel instead of Redmi note 5 pro rather the same was duly delivered to the complainant in rightful manner. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

5.             In reply filed by OP number 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint should be dismissed with special costs, that the complainant has suppressed the material facts, the transaction took place between OP number 2 and 3 and  OP number 4 has nothing to do with the complaint and it is stated that the complainant is not a  consumer of the OP number 4.  On merits, the allegations leveled in the complaint have been stated to be wrong and denied and has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

6.             The parties produced their respective evidence.

7.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by the parties along with supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant placed an online order of Redmi Note 5 Pro colour blue  bearing product number Handsets/WU83446/MI, HSN: 85171290 with the OPs for Rs.13,499/- vide invoice number FABBER1900308557 dated 20.7.2018 through opposite party number 1 which was placed successfully.  The learned counsel for complainant has further contended that it was assured by the OP number 1 that the mobile set shall be delivered shortly.  The grievance of complainant is that he received one parcel from the OPs on 22.07.2018 and after receiving the parcel from OPs, the complainant opened the same and found that some other dead mobile phone make Micromax colour black instead of Redmi note 5 Pro in the said parcel. Further learned counsel for complainant has contended that the complainant immediately contacted the OP company through customer care and made a return request and the OPs assured the complainant to resolve the problem, but despite repeated requests the mobile in question was not replaced. To support such contention, the learned counsel for complainant has relied upon Ex.C-1 which is the copy of bill showing payment of Rs.13,499/-. Ex.C-5 is the copy of customer support stating that they will resolve the problem by 23 July. Similarly, Ex.C-7 further reveals that the OP number 1 shall resolve the problem by 27 July 9.00 PM. Again Ex.C-10 is the copy of customer support document, which clearly reveals that it was in the very much knowledge of the OP number 1 that the complainant has received the different mobile set than the ordered one and assured the complainant to resolve the problem. On the other hand, the OPs have produced the affidavits to support their contention in the written reply. Ex.OP-A is the affidavit of Mr. Satyajeet Bhattacharya and there is no explanation from the OPs that how it happened and who put  another Mobile set at the place of Redmi Note 5 Pro color blue which was ordered by the complainant by paying the huge amount.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.13,499/- for the purchase of mobile set in question. On the other hand, the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that the OPs supplied the mobile set i.e. Redmi note 5 pro as ordered by the complainant nor the OPs have produced any evidence to rebut the evidence of complainant.  As such, we find that the complainant is successful in proving his case by producing cogent and reliable evidence on record.  

9.             In the circumstances of the case, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OP number 1 is directed to refund to the complainant the amount of the mobile set i.e. Rs.13,499/- which was paid by the complainant to OP number 1 for purchase of mobile set in question.  The OP number 1 is  further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- as consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

10.            This complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.            This order be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                September 20, 2022.

 

​