Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/318/2020

Ujval Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Dharm Chand Mittal

06 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/318/2020
Date of Institution	:	26/08/2020
Date of Decision	:	06.12.2022

 

Ujval Mittal S/o D.C.Mittal R/o H.No.1193, 1^st Floor, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Buildings Alyssa,  Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Village Devarabeesanahali, Bengaluru-560103 (Karnataka).

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                        

ARGUED BY		Sh.Dharm Chand Mittal, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh.Atul Sharma, Counsel for OP.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had booked an order for supply of the painting namely “Pariarts Multiple Frame Modern View Digital Cotton Canves Painting” vide order dated 26.06.2020 having a value of Rs.1,299/- (Annexure C-2). As per complainant, on 02.07.2020 in the evening a parcel was delivered purported to be carrying the said ordered painting. When the said parcel was opened on 03.07.2020 the complainant was shocked to find that OP has dispatched a totally different article instead of dispatching the one as shown in Annexure C-2., which was ordered and instead of dispatching the painting a “3-D Art Wrok Scenery:” has been dispatched and delivered to the complainant (Annexure C-3). A return request was attempted to be submitted but the complainant was not permitted to lodge a complaint as it was displaying some error in the application of OP and when after sometime another attempt was made, at that time it was informed that account of the complainant has been blocked as a result of which the return request could not be submitted and under compulsion the said different scenery remains to be returned. It is further submitted that a return request can be submitted within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of parcel, but the account of the complainant remained blocked. Copy of the bill is annexed as Annexure C-4. It is further submitted that besides lodging complaint through customer care, the complaints were also lodged through email and on social media i.e., Facebook account of OP, but no action was taken to redress the grievance of the complainant (Annexure C-5). Hence, the present complaint. 
2.      In its written statement the OP has submitted that the instant product was purchased from the third party seller who had sold the product to the complainant and supplied it to the complainant through third party logistic service provider. Upon receiving alleged grievance of the complainant, the matter was escalated to the seller and the seller has confirmed that the right product in intact condition has been delivered by him and the seller himself has rejected the return request raised by the complainant. It is further submitted that the OP conducted an internal investigation into Flipkart account of the complainant and to the utter shock to the OP, found the complainant to be the habitual offender of the policies of the platform. The complainant was found to be having long history of raising return requests on falsified grounds of mis-shipment, different product, wrong product, empty parcel etc. Hence, the OP had blocked and blacklisted the account of the complainant for any further transaction till completion of investigation and the complainant was duly informed about the same. Furthermore, the complainant was duly provided the link to clear off the balance pending amount in his pay later account and the complainant has paid off the due amount. It is also submitted that the account of the complainant has not been reactivated as alleged by the complainant. Denying all other allegations leveled in the complaint it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3.      Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.      Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.      The sole grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that despite payment of Rs.1299/- Annexure C-4, he was sent a different product and not the product which he ordered/booked with OP. When a return request was attempted to be submitted the same could not be lodged as the OP blocked his account. Annexure C-5 is the complaint submitted by the complainant on the Facebook and Email account of the OP.  
7.     The stand taken by the OP is that the product was purchased by the complainant from third party seller and when the grievance of the complainant was received, the matter was conveyed to the seller and the seller confirmed that the right product was delivered to the complainant and so the seller rejected the return request. It has been further contended that it is the complainant who is habitual offender of the OP. The complainant is found to be having long history of raising return requests on falsified grounds of mis-shipment, different product, empty parcel etc. Hence, his account has been blocked and blacklisted.
8.     Admittedly the account of the complainant was blocked by the OP but a contradictory stand has been taken by it in its reply stating that when enquired from the seller the correct ordered product was delivered to the complainant by the seller. In our opinion the OP is taking the dual stand on one hand blocking the account and thereafter confirming without having any complaint that the right product was sent to the complainant. Further, there is no cogent evidence on record to prove the allegations of the OP. It is not the case of the complainant that he did not pay consideration of the order. We feel that if, the account of the complainant was blocked and blacklisted by the OP being a habitual offender then how come the complainant could place order in the present case. It is out of our understanding that a consumer can only place the order and thereafter if any complaint then how OPs are authorized to block his account. Hence, the act of the OP in sending a wrong product, thereafter blocking the account of the complainant for not permitting him to raise the complaint proves deficiency in service and its indulgence in unfair trade practice.
9.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of Rs.1299/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization. The complainant shall, however, return the wrong product in question to the OP.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- to the complainant towards compensation.
3.  to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- towards litigation costs.

10.     This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i)&(ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			Sd/-
			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
06.12.2022
Ls