View 2331 Cases Against Flipkart
View 1660 Cases Against Internet
Ashish Grover filed a consumer case on 03 Jul 2018 against Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. in the Sangrur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/181/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 17 Jul 2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 181
Instituted on: 10.04.2018
Decided on: 03.07.2018
Ashish Grover son of Shri Subhash Chand Grover, resident of #56 Partap Nagar, Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3rd Block, Koramangala Bangalore-560034 through its Managing Director.
2. Colortrades, Colortrades Office No.5, First Floor, 5/29, Govardhan HSG, Soc, Maharshinagar, Pune-411038 through its Proprietor/ Partner.
3. Goinee Syntech Technology Pvt. Limited, E-9, Block No.B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-op Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director. ….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Amit Aggarwal,Advocate
FOR THE OPP. PARTIES : Exparte
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
ORDER:
Sarita Garg, Member
1. Ashish Grover, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he online purchased mobile phone model Gionee S6 Pro
of OP no.3 from the OPs no.1 and 2 for an amount of Rs.12149/- which was received on 01.10.2017. After opening the parcel of said mobile set the complainant came to know that mobile set was not supporting the VOLTE calling as showed on the web site of the OPs. The complainant immediately sent a return request to OP no.1 and in this regard OP no.1 sent a text message to complainant on 01.10.2017. After that the complainant received another message "Sorry, the seller is unable to fulfill your return request". The complainant requested the OPs so many times to refund the amount but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to refund the amount of said mobile phone i.e. Rs.12149/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account mental agony and harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.20000/- as litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared for OPs despite service and as such OPs are proceeded exparte.
3. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed evidence.
4. From the perusal of the documents placed on the file, we find that the complainant mobile phone model Gionee S6 Pro of OP no.3 company from the OPs no.1 and 2 for an amount of Rs.12149/- which was received on 01.10.2017. The complainant case is that after opening the parcel of said mobile set he came to know that mobile set was not supporting the VOLTE calling as showed on the web site of the OPs. The complainant immediately sent a return request to OP no.1 and in this regard OP no.1 sent a text message to complainant on 01.10.2017. After that the complainant received another message that "Sorry, the seller is unable to fulfill your return request". The complainant requested the OPs so many times to refund the amount but all in vain.
5. The complainant has produced on record copy of return policy of the OP Ex.C-3 wherein it has been specifically mentioned in case of return of the mobiles "you may request for a replacement within 10 days of delivery/ installation (as applicable). In certain cases where the seller is unable to process a replacement, the seller will offer a refund to you". A bare perusal of message received from the OPs Ex.C-5 shows that said mobile set was delivered to the complainant on 10/01/2017 (i.e 01.10.2017). We have also perused the copy of message received from the OPs Ex.C-6 wherein it has been mentioned " Return requested: We have received your return request for Gionee. We will give you an update soon" which means that the complainant had a return request within stipulated time i.e. within 10 days from delivery of the mobile set. But the OPs did not accede the return request of the complainant rather they sent a message Ex.C-8 wherein it has been mentioned " Return update: Sorry, the seller is unable to fulfill your return request for Gionee". Hence, we find that the OPs have totally failed to get the return request of the complainant processed as per return policy of the OPs. The OPs have not come forward to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte.
6. For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.12149/- as cost of the mobile set subject to return of the mobile set in question alongwith its accessories by the complainant as the complainant has stated in his complaint that the phone in question is lying with him in non-working condition. The OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation.
7. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Announced
July 3, 2018
( Sarita Garg) ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.