Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/238/2020

Jagan Nath Bhandari - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Satish Mishra, Gaurav Chanana, Chetan Chauhan

07 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	238 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	17.06.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	07.03.2024

 

 

 

 

Jagan Nath Bhandari, Office address: SCO No.35-36, 3^rd Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh and resident of House No.12, Block A, Janta Nagar, Naya Gaon, Mohali, Punjab 160103.

.... Complainant

VERSUS

1] Flipkart Internet Private Limited, through its Managing Director/Manager/Authorised signatory, Flipkart India headquarters Mailing Address : Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Ozone Manay Tech Park, %56/18 & 55/09, 7^th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore 560068, Karnataka, India

2]  State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory, Address: Medical Institute, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh  

.....Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:      MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,  PRESIDENT

                            MR.B.M.SHARMA             MEMBER

 

Present:-       Sh.S.K.Verma, Counsel for the complainant

Sh.Atul Sharma, Counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.Sandeep Dua, Counsel for OP No.2.

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A (Eng.), LLM, PRESIDENT

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that the complainant purchased one Mobile phone – Redmi Note 7 Pro (Neptune Blue 64 GB) costing Rs.11,999/- from OP No.1 on 07.10.2019 by opting payment mode of EMI amounting to Rs.1088 X 12 months from his Savings Bank Account No.30065020326 at SBI/OP No.2.  The said phone was delivered to the complainant within 2/3 days of booking but he returned it to OP No.1 well within 10 days of its delivery due to some defect in it and sought refund, which OP No.1 assured to credit by 12.11.2019.  However, the OP No.1 failed to refund the amount by the promised date, as a result, the OP No.2 Bank on 16.12.2019 deducted an amount of Rs.2176/- against EMI of loan amount from his saving account.  It is stated that the complainant was in regular follow up with OP No.1 but every time the OP No.1 sought more time to solve the issue and ultimately, it refunded the amount in the account of the complainant only on 30.12.2019 (Ann.C-5).  It is stated that on 01.01.2020 the O No.2 Bank further deducted another EMI of Rs.1100/-.  The complainant approached the OP No.2 bank and requested to close the loan account as the amount has been refunded by OP No.1 whereupon Op No.2 closed the loan account on 03.01.2020 (Ann.C-6 & C-7).  It is submitted that due to the above said act & conduct of OP No.1 in delayed refund, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.801/- as he had to pay Rs.12800/- against the loan of Rs.11999/- which could have been saved if OP No.1 had made the refund timely.  Hence, this complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OPs seeking directions to the OP No.1 to refund an amount of Rs.801/.- paid as interest to OP No.2 dud to delay in refund by it as well as compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

2]       After service of the notice, the OP No.1 has filed its written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that OP No.1 is neither the seller nor manufacturer/producer/service centre of the product and neither is a logistics provider in this case and works merely an intermediary providing an online platform to independent third party sellers. It is stated that the whole transaction is between the complainant and seller of the product. It is also stated that the liability for refunding the requisite amount lies upon the seller of the product.  It is further stated that the OP No.1 is not responsible for any financial loss.  It is pleaded that in the present complaint, the seller of the product failed to initiate the refund which was communicated to the complainant by answering OP No.1.  Denying other allegations, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The OP No.2 – SBI has also filed written version stating that after creating loan account by using Credit Card, an auto generated message is flashed on the mobile of the customer. It is stated that the refund was to be made by OP No.1 and the OP No.2 has no concerned with the refund transactions.  It is submitted that the refund was made into the account of the complainant but no request for closure of loan account was made by the complainant.  It is also submitted that the system automatically deducted the EMI on its due date from the account of the complainant till the said loan account is not cleared/closed by the loanee and it was the duty of the complainant to give a request for closure of loan account to the bank.  Pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written submissions.

5]       From the record and pleadings, it is observed that it is an admitted case of the parties that the mobile phone in question purchased by the complainant on 07.10.2019 on EMI from OP NO.1 was returned to OP No.1 within 10 days of its delivery i.e. in Oct., 2019.  It is also admitted case that the cost of the returned mobile phone was refunded to the complainant only on 30.12.2019 i.e. after about two month’s period from the date of return of the product which was done in Oct., 2019 and due to this delay the complainant had suffer loss of Rs.801/- towards loan interest.  Thus, we are of the view that the two month’s delay on the part of OP No.1 in refunding the cost of the returned mobile phone is not justified and clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part due to which the complainant had suffered.         

6]       Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 is clearly made out.  Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed against OP No.1.  The OP No.1 is directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.801/- along with interest @10% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till the date of its actual payment to the complainant.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

7]       The complaint qua OP NO.2/SBI stands dismissed. 

 

8]       The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07.03.2024                                                                    

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER