Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/36/2016

Dhawal Bhandari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. (WWW.Flipkart.com) - Opp.Party(s)

In person

25 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/36/2016
Date of Institution	:	15/01/2016
Date of Decision	:	25/07/2016

 

 

Dhawal Bhandari S/o Sh. R.K. Bhandari, R/o H.No.3320, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh – 160019.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

Flipkart Internet Private Limited, [www.Flipkart.com] a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with its Registered Office at Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala Industrial Layout, Next to Wipro Office, Corporation Ward No.68, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 034, Karnataka, India, through its duly Authorized Representative.

……Opposite Party

 

QUORUM:	DR.MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for Opposite Party.

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

1.         Sh. Dhawal Bhandari, Complainant has brought this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Flipkart Internet Private Limited, (hereinafter called the Opposite Party), alleging that he placed an order via Order ID: OD104753852201780000 dated 21.12.2015 for 4 pieces of “Nillkin NKL-1268 Tempered Glass for Samsung Note 4” for totalling amount of Rs.996/- from Opposite Party. However, on receipt of the same, the Complainant found that the Opposite Party sent some cheap roadside product named as “Steel Plus Explosion Proof Tempered Glass Film”. The matter immediately was reported to the Opposite Party, but when no satisfactory reply was given, a police Complaint was lodged by the Complainant, whereafter the Opposite Party swung into action and assured the Complainant that they would send genuine replacement. However, while sending replacement, the Opposite Party instead of 4 pieces, sent only 3 pieces and that too again of “Steel Plus Explosion Proof Tempered Glass Film”. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant failed to elicit any fruitful results, he filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before this Forum, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         In its written statement, Opposite Party, while admitting the basic facts of the case, has pleaded that it is an online portal where several buyers and sellers come and do business of sale and purchase. It is neither the seller nor the manufacturer or its service centre respectively, and hence no liability can be fastened upon the answering Opposite Party. It has been asserted that as a goodwill gesture, in this case, the answering Opposite Party even offered refund to the Complainant, but with a view to gain illegally, he lodged the police Complaint and has further left no stone unturned to wobble the market reputation of the Opposite Party. While denying all other allegations and pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant and learned counsel for the Opposite Party.
7.         It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the Complainant purchased 4 no. of “Nillkin NKL-1268 Tempered Glass for Samsung Note 4”, for Rs.996/-, through Opposite Party. The allegation of the Complainant is, that the product sent to him was not of the quality which he ordered for, but some cheap roadside product with other name i.e. “Steel Plus Explosion Proof Tempered Glass Film”. As per the case of the Complainant, no satisfactory reply was given by the Opposite Party, when he reported the matter. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged a Complaint with the Police, after which Opposite Party assured of the genuine replacement of the product in question. It has further been alleged that even during this replacement, instead of 4 pieces only, 3 pieces were sent, that too again of cheaper quality. 
8.         The stand taken by the Opposite Party is that it is neither the Seller nor the Manufacturer and hence not liable for any deficiency in service. Still, as a goodwill gesture, Opposite Party offered refund to the Complainant.
9.         After going through the documents on record and keeping in view the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that on the one hand, the Opposite Party is saying that it being neither Seller nor Manufacturer is not liable for any deficiency in service and contrary to it, on the other hand, it is offering refund to the Complainant, taking the shelter of goodwill gesture. This dual conduct of the Opposite Party proves that it is certainly indulged in unfair trade practice, which has caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant.
10.         Had the Opposite Party resolved the grievance of the Complainant earlier, in the first instance, there was no occasion for the Complainant to approach the Police for the replacement and then to this Forum.   
11.         The Complainant has urged that since the issue relating to his case could not be handled properly by the Opposite Party, even after his repeated requests, therefore, he is entitled to be compensated and to be paid the litigation expenses. We find considerable force in this contention. The fact remains that the Complainant made various requests to the Opposite Party for sorting out his problem. As the problem of the Complainant could not be resolved by the Opposite Party, despite repeated assurances, he was ultimately compelled to file the present unnecessary litigation before this Forum.  Therefore, we are of the view that there is sufficient evidence on record along with offer of refund during the pendency of the case by the Opposite Party, which in itself points out towards deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. 
12.         In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed to:-

[a]    To refund Rs.996/- to the Complainant; 

[b]    To pay a composite amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant and towards costs of litigation;

13.         The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.[a] & [b] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment.
14.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25/07/2016                                                       

Sd/-

(DR.MANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER