Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/246/2020

Jitendra Kumar Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Samiya Singh & Balpreet K. Sidhu

06 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/246/2020
Date of Institution	:	04/08/2020
Date of Decision	:	06/12/2023

Jitendra Kumar Rana s/o Sh. Rishipal Singh, aged about 32 years r/o House Number 330/1, Khudda Ali Sher, Chandigarh 160013.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka, India.

                Through

1.     Santosh Kumar Bethala (Additional Director), Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka, India.

2.     Prabhu Bala Srinivasan (Director), Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka, India.

3.     Binny Bansal, Sachin Bansal (Founders), Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka, India.

4.     Kalyan Krishnamurthy, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka, India.

5.     PhonePe, Phonepe Private Limited (Formerly known as FX Mart Private Ltd.), Unit No.001, Ground Floor, Boston House, Suren Road, Off. Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093, Maharashtra, India.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Atul Sharma, Advocate for OPs 1 to 4.
	:	None for OP-5

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Jitendra Kumar Rana, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on 16.6.2020, the complainant had purchased an Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max mobile phone (hereinafter referred to as “subject mobile”), through the official application of OP-1, as it was offering 96% discount on the device on that day. As per the offer made by OP-1, complainant had made payment of ₹4,999/- for the subject phone on the online portal/website of OP-1 by availing discount of 96% discount.  However, no receipt or order details were generated despite of the fact that, while making the said payment, online portal of OP-5 i.e. PhonePe was also used.  After waiting for some time, when nothing was heard from the OPs, the complainant called customer service centre of OP-1, who assured that either the subject product will be released or refund will be made to him.  The payment made by the complainant to the Flipkart/OP-1 was debited from the SBI bank account of the complainant and the transaction details are Annexure C-1.  However, when no response was received by the complainant from the OPs, he served a legal notice (Annexure C-2) which was replied (Annexure C-3) by OP-1.  The complainant received emails dated 15.7.2020 and 17.7.2020 (Annexure C-4 & C-5) from the OPs, but, nothing was done.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written versions.
3. In their joint written version, OPs 1 to 4, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of facts.  It is alleged that, in fact, the transaction ID referred by the complainant has no connection with Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) regarding which complainant was also informed and he was advised to contact OP-5 for further assistance. Even OP-1 had no role to play in the entire transaction. Moreover, Flipkart platform is an electronic market place model E-commerce platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate the sale transactions between the independent third party sellers and independent end customer.  Not only this, even no payment has been made to Flipkart as per the transaction document produced by the complainant and the answering OP cannot be held responsible for the same.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In its written version, OP-5, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of facts.  It is alleged that, in fact, the answering OP is an intermediary as per Information Technology Act, 2020 and it complies with all the obligations laid down for the intermediaries in the Information Technology.  It is further alleged that, in fact, complainant has come with the plea that he has not received the subject product or refund of the amount of ₹4,999/- by using the App of the answering OP for purchase of the subject product.  It is further alleged that, in fact, the said transaction was done by using the App of the answering OP, which was secured by UPI PIN and was successful at the end of the answering OP.  The answering OP only facilitates payment and services in connection with online transactions and in case any person intended to avail the services of the answering OP, he is bound to adhere to the terms and conditions of the answering OP.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. The complainant chose not to file rejoinder.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents. However, vide order dated 18.9.2023 of this Commission, evidence by way of affidavit of OP-5 was taken off the record in view of statement made by counsel for OP-5.
3. We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for OPs 1 to 4 and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had booked the subject product with OPs 1 to 4 by paying an amount of ₹4,999/- by using the App of OP-5, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid amount was paid by the complainant to OPs 1 to 4 under a scheme through which 96% rebate was given to the customers booking the aforesaid amount on the particular date i.e. 16.6.2020 and OPs have neither delivered the subject product to the complainant nor refunded the aforesaid amount to him, the said act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount of ₹4,999/- alongwith compensation and litigation expenses, especially when he has confined his claim only to that extent vide his separate statement recorded on 24.11.2023, as is the case of the complainant, or if the consumer complaint is not maintainable against OPs 1 to 4 since no amount was received by them and it is only OP-5 who is liable to pay the said amount, as is the defence of OPs 1 to 4, or if OP-5 is also not liable to pay any amount to the complainant and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of OP-5.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the documentary evidence led by the parties and the same is required to be scanned carefully in order to determine the real controversy between the parties.
   3. No doubt it is evident from the record that the defence of OPs 1 to 4 is that the amount of ₹4,999/- for the purchase of the subject mobile was not transferred to their account, but, when it is the admitted case of the complainant and OPs 1 to 4 that the complainant, after non receipt of the subject mobile, had immediately lodged a complaint with them, it was obligatory on the part of OPs 1 to 4 to have swung into action to find out the real culprits and got the amount refunded to the complainant, but, they failed to do so.  Further, OPs 1 to 4 have not even led any evidence to prove what action they had taken on coming to know about the grievance of the complainant against the said third party who allegedly used the name of their platform. Hence, OPs 1 to 4 simply cannot pass on the buck on the shoulders of OP-5 and they cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrongs. Similarly, OP-5, whose App was used by the complainant for transfer of the amount, can also not escape from its liability as OP-5 was also knowing about the account of the culprit in whose account the amount had been transferred and same has not been disclosed to the complainant till date.
   4. It is pertinent to mention here that Flipkart (OPs 1 to 4) is a renowned name in the field of online shopping and it provides various kind of discounts/offers etc. at the time of festivals and on other important occasions and customers place order through the online platform of the OP keeping in view the assurances of the OP.  Hence, if any customer has some grievance regarding the quality of the product or non-delivery thereof, OPs are equally liable and duty bound to get such grievance redressed at the earliest by replacement of the product or refund of the amount, as the case may be.
   5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint. Accordingly, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the OPs are held liable jointly and severally.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of ₹4,999/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment/order i.e. 16.6.2020 onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹3,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹2,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 06/12/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member