Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/235/2021

Ritesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Binat Sharma

03 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/235/2021
Date of Institution	:	09/04/2021
Date of Decision	:	03/10/2023

 

Ritesh Sharma s/o Sh. Davinder Kumar, House No.1863, Sector 22B, Chandigarh 160022.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at Vaishnavi Summit Ground Floor, 7^th Main 3^rd Block 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bangalore 560094.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Atul Sharma, Advocate for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Ritesh Sharma, complainant against the aforesaid opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the OP had published “The Big Billion Days” sale and had offered Apple Iphone 11 pro 128 GB at the price of ₹4,999/- and Apple Iphone 11 pro 256 GB at the price of ₹5,999/- through advertisement (Annexure C-1). On 1.4.2020, after seeing the aforesaid deal, complainant bought both the aforesaid Iphones with price of ₹4,999/- and ₹5,999/- respectively and made the payment through UPI mode, as reflected in the statements (Annexure C-2 & C-3).  It was mentioned in the brochure that the items will be delivered within 3-4 days. When the same were not received by the complainant within that period, he made several calls to the head office number of the OP, but, with no result.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and concealment of facts.  It is further alleged that the complainant has never ordered the aforesaid products through the OP nor the OP has any role to play in the entire transaction entered between the purchaser and the seller. OP merely operates as an online platform and all the products are sold and supplied by independent third party sellers.  Every time a person places order on the platform, said transaction is entered between that person and independent third party seller.  It is alleged that the OP has no role to play in the entire transaction entered between the purchaser and the seller and the ultimate beneficiary is the independent third party seller and not the 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.
3. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased subject two Iphones through the online platform of OP, by relying upon the brochure (Annexure C-1) and had made the payment of ₹4,999/- and ₹5,999/- as per Annexure C-2 & C-3, which fact has specifically been denied by the OP that the complainant ever approached it for the purchase of subject Iphones.  Faced with this situation, it is to be determined if the complainant had purchased the subject Iphones through the OP and non-delivery of the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the consumer complaint is not maintainable against the OP and liable to be dismissed, as is defence of OP.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1 shows that OP had publicized “Flipkart Sale Is Back” “THE BIG BILLION DAYS” whereby it offered Iphone 11 Pro at just ₹4,999/-. Perusal of Annexure C-2 & C-3 clearly indicates that complainant had though transferred payment of ₹4,999/- & ₹5,999/- on 1.4.2020 to Binodini Sales, but, same was done through platform of OP as there is also mention of “Oid202004011236500059@FLIPKART” and “Oid202004011225500021@FLIPKART”. Hence, it is clear that both the orders were placed through the online platform of the OP.  That being the position, OP cannot be allowed to escape from its liability under the plea that it merely acts as an intermediary and the ultimate beneficiary is the independent third party seller and not the OP. 
   3. Otherwise also, OP has not led any evidence to prove that such an offer was not displayed on their online platform. Further, OP has even not led any evidence to prove what action it has taken on coming to know about the grievance of the complainant against the said third party who allegedly used the name of OP platform. Hence, the OP cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrongs.
   4. Flipkart (OP) 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, OP is 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 the instant case, complainant is proved to be a genuine buyer who had used the online platform of the OP for the purchase of the subject Iphones and had bonafidely transferred the amounts of ₹4,999/- and ₹5,999/- to the said seller and non-delivery of the products or refund of the price thereof, certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and it is liable to refund the same alongwith interest and compensation etc. for the harassment caused to the complainant.
   6. 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 and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund the amounts of ₹4,999/- and ₹5,999/- respectively to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of payment by him i.e. 1.4.2020, till the date of payment.
2. to pay an amount of ₹2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹2,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within thirty 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 03/10/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member