Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 168
Instituted on : 04.03.2021
Decided on : 23.07.2024
Manoj age 32 years, s/o Sh. Raj Singh Village-Machroli, District Jhajjar, Pin Code-124108.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka CIN-U51109KA2012PTC066107.
...........……Respondent/opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Rajesh Sharma Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.KunalJuneja, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he placed an order to purchase a mobile phone of Oppocompany as well as of its back cover from the opposite party on dated 20.01.2021 and the order ID of the same is OD220798967893430000. The amount of Rs.5253/- was deducted from the credit card of the complainant. The complainant received a message that the mobile phone will bedelivered on 23.01.2021 but the same was not delivered by the opposite party. Complainant made repeated calls at the toll free number of the opposite party and they told that the mobile could not be delivered at the given address. Complainant was directed to cancel the order and toplace another order. Complainant asked the opposite party that when they can deliver the back cover of the mobile on the alleged address then why the mobile could not be delivered on the alleged address. But the opposite party refused for the same. The reason behind the non delivery of the mobile phone was that the offer available on the alleged mobile was lapsed and the company had not sent the mobile phone for its own benefit. Due to act and conduct of the opposite party complainant not only suffered financial loss but also suffered mental agony and harassment. Complainant made an online complainant on 25.01.2021 and thereafter opposite party refunded the amount of Rs.4886/- and Rs.100/- to the complainant. But the complainant was not compensated in terms of harassment and financial loss. The act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.500000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him.
2. After registration of complaint,notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that opposite party provides online market place platform/technology and/or other mechanism/services to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic/commerce for various goods, by and between respective buyers and sellers and enables them to deal in various categories of goods. The product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by the opposite party and opposite party has no role in providing delivery or any compensation of the product sold by an independent seller through the Flipkart Platform of the opposite party. It is further submitted that the delivery or cancellation of the product is only determined by the seller and the opposite party is not responsible for any product cancellation which is only related to seller. Opposite party has not caused any kind of mental agony or otherwise harassment/financial loss to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation from the opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on dated 03.02.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party made a statement that reply already filed on its behalf be read in evidence, tendered document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on 07.11.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is observed that as per transaction details given on Ex.C1, an amount of Rs.5253/- was paid to the opposite party on 25.01.2021whereas the complainant has wrongly mentioned the date of purchase as 20.01.2021. It is also observed that Rs.4886/- and Rs.100/- were credited in the account of complainant on 26.01.2021. As per copy of message Ex.C2 dated 27.01.2021, the order of complainant for Oppo A12 mobile was cancelled by the opposite party. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, due to cancellation of booking by the opposite party he suffered mental agony & harassment. In this regard, it is observed that when an item was not available in the stock, the same should not have been displayed on the website of the opposite party and should not have been booked by the opposite party. Due to non delivery and cancellation of item by the opposite party, the complainant might have suffered some harassment and therefore, he has filed the present complaint. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the alleged amount of Rs.3000/- from the date of order i.e. 23.07.2024 till its realisation to the complainant.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
23.07.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
