Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/154/2021

Tushar Pahwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Deepak Goyal adv

19 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	154 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	04.03.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	19.04.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Tushar Pahwa, aged about 26 years s/o Sh.Naresh Kumar, R/o House No.3390, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh presently residing at House No.202, Sri Yantra CHS, Plot No.111, Sector 9, Ulwe, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, through his Special Power of Attorney and real brother namely Dixit Pahwa, aged about 22 years, s/o Sh.Naresh Kumar, R/o House NO.3390, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh. 

            …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Buildings Alyssa, Begonia and Clove Embassy Tech village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka, India, through its authorized representative.

2]  The Nokia Private Limited, Flat No.1213, 12^th Floor, Kailash Building, 26 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Central Delhi, New Delhi 110001

3]  Consulting Rooms Private Limited, Office No.1106-1107, 11^th Floor, Kailash Building, 26 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Dehi 110001

2^nd Address:- 202 DBS Business Center FF, World Trade Tower, Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

For Complainant : Sh.Vipul Goel, Counsel of complainant

For OP(s)       : Sh.Atul Sharma, Counsel of OP No.1.

   OP No.2 exparte.

   Sh.Rohit Kumar, Counsel of OP NO.3.

 

 

PER  B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

        The case of the complainant precisely is that he purchased one Nokia 43 inch Ultra HD 4K LED Smart Android TV from OPs, through Online, by making payment of Rs.31,999/- vide invoice dated 3.7.2020 (Ann.C-4) and the said TV was delivered on 4.7.2020.  It is stated that after installation, the complainant found that he has been supplied a refurbished LED TV by OPs, which the complainant reported to the OPs.  It is also stated that just after 1-2 months of use, the TV in question started giving so many problem such as clashes of audio and video, screen bubbling, hearing cracked echoes etc.  This was reported to the OPs by sending emails (Ann.C-5 & C-6), whereupon the OPs took back the said TV from the house of the complainant and assured to refund its cost of Rs.31,999/- latest by 10.11.2020.  However, the OPs did not refund the cost of the TV, as such the complainant sent a legal notice dated 12.1.2021 but that too did not yield any result. Hence, this complaint has been preferred alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]    The OP No.1 has filed its written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the TV in question was purchased by complainant from OP No.3, third party seller, and the consideration against the said product has been received by the concerned seller only.  It is stated that the complainant has purchased the product from one of the sellers listed on Flipkart Platform.  It is submitted that when the complainant raised his grievance with OP No.1, it duly escalated the issue to seller, who informed the answering OP No.1 that the refund of the amount had been duly initiated by it on 23.3.2021 and it was duly communicated to complainant. It is pleaded that the OP No.1 being merely an Online intermediary and not the seller of the product sold to the complainant in no way assumes liability for the alleged deficient act of OP No.3. Denying other assertions, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

        The OP No.2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded   ex parte vide order dated 7.4.2022.

        The OP No.3 has also filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the main grievance of the complainant is related with non-refund of amount of Rs.31,999/- which was paid for the purchase of LED TV in question.  It is stated that the amount of Rs.31,999/- was duly paid to the complainant and the same is credited in the account of complainant on 23.3.2021.  It is submitted that the product in question was picked up on 6.11.2020 from the place of complainant and necessary steps for the refund of the amount were initiated on 7.11.2020.  It is also submitted that the delay in refund, if any, was not intentional but due to technical defects. It is also submitted that answering OP provides 10 days return/replacement policy whereby the purchaser can seek refund of the amount/replacement of the product within 10 days of its receipt, whereas in the present case, the complainant used the product for 4 months and then returned it and sought refund, which too was done.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying all other allegations, the OP NO.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]      Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby controverting the assertions of OP NO.1 & 3 as made in their written statements.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]      We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through entire documents on record including written arguments.

6]      The record reveals that the claim of the complainant with regard to non-refund of cost of LED TV in question has been redressed by the OPs by making payment of Rs.31,999/-, which has also been admitted by the complainant.

 

7]      Now the complainant’s grouse is only for grant of compensation for the harassment suffered by him during the deficient act of the OPs and also for litigation expenses.

 

8]      It is clear from record that the OPs have refunded the cost of LED TV in question to complainant only after filing of the present complaint, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Thus it is obvious that the complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony due to the deficient act & conducts of the OPs and has also been forced to enter into unwanted litigation. Therefore, the complainant deserves to be compensated.

 

9]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the complaint stands partly allowed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 2 with direction to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.15000/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

        This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- apart from above relief.   

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19^th April, 2023             

                                                                                        Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER