Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/609/2020

Vikas Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Y.P. Singla

01 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/609/2020
Date of Institution	:	21.12.2020
Date of Decision	:	01/02/2023

 

Vikas Rana, aged about 42 years son of Sh. Jagdish Chand, working as ‘Sr. Asstt.’ o/o Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, Room No.12-A, 4^th Floor, Administration Branch-1, Punjab Civil Secretariat-1, Sector-1, Chandigarh & R/o H.No.1620, Saini Vihar, Phase-3, Baltana, Distt. SAS Nagar.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at: Buildings Alyssa, Begonia and Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka, India, through its Managing Director.
2. Ekart Logistics, Plot No.25, Industrial Area Phase I, Chandigarh 160002, through its concerned authority.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Y.P.Singla, Counsel for Complainant alongwith Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Atul Sharma, Counsel for OPs.

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had pre-booked the item named as ‘Asics Gel-Glyde 2 Running Shoes for Men’, colour black, size 8, seller Wizrob Fasion, worth Rs.3419/- in Flipkart Sale with OP No.1 on 12.10.2020 vide order dated 12.10.2020 by paying Rs.1.00 on 13.10.2020 from his working place and he paid rest of the amount Rs.3418/- on 15.10.2020 through his debit card (Annexure C-1 & C-2) colly. The status of delivery of this booked product was reflected to the complainant as expected by 19.10.2020. Thereafter the expected date of delivery was changed to 21.10.2020. It is submitted that the MRP of the booked product is Rs.8,999/- and it was offered by the OP No.1 to its customer on 12.10.2020 at discounted price of Rs.3419/- and seeing the attractive offer of lower price, the complainant had booked the product. The complainant has not received the product then he contacted the customer care service of OP No.1 telephonically on 21.10.2020 enquiring about the status of delivery and he was told by their executive that the complainant should wait till 26.10.2020. The complainant has also lodged a complaint dated 8.11.2020 sent through email to the OP No.1 (Annexure C-3) colly. As per complainant, the reason of not supplying the booked product to the complainant at the original agreed discounted price of Rs.3419/- by the OP No.1 and instead of suggesting the complainant to cancel the earlier order and to book it afresh is that now the booked product is no more available with OP No.1 at the discounted price of Rs.3419/- and the same is now available with OP No.1 at much higher price (Annexure C-4). The OPs have neither delivered the booked product to the complainant nor have refunded his paid amount. Hence, this present complaint.  
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the order of the complainant was cancelled by the seller due to unforeseen issue and the refund of Rs.3418/- & Rs.1/- was also refunded to the complainant by the seller. It is also submitted that the sole responsibility to ensure the delivery of the ordered product lies upon the seller of the product and not the OP No.1. The product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by OP No.1. It has no role in providing warranty of the product sold by an independent seller through the Flipkart Platform of the OP No.1. It is also submitted that the seller of the product who has the responsibility to ensure the delivery of the ordered product at the address provided and within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that no relief sought against the OP No.1 can be granted in the given facts and circumstances. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the OP No.2 is merely a logistic service provider who provides its services all over the globe. The OP No.2 had no connection with regard to the alleged delay in delivery of the product by the seller. It is also submitted that the OP No.2 have no role in the delay in the delivery of the order placed by the complainant. The role of OP No.2 is to provide a carrier to various sellers all over India to deliver their products to the users of the online platform. It is further submitted that any kind of assurance whether in terms of delivery, refund, replacement or otherwise are offered and provided by the sellers of the particular product and the OP No.2 does not associate itself with any kind of liability for delay in delivery faulty product, wrong product, empty parcel or otherwise. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.2.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     The sole grouse of the complainant through present complaint is that he paid an amount of Rs.3419/- to the OPs for the purpose of buying ‘Asics Gel-Glyde 2 Running Shoes for Men’, colour black, size 8, on 15.10.2020. But the product in question was never delivered to the complainant and despite various efforts even the amount in question was not refunded to the complainant. As the MRP of the booked product was Rs.8,999/-, the complainant as offered by the OPs to book again could not get the same deal ever again. During the filing of the present case the product in question was available for Rs.5,669/- as per annexure C-4. Hence the negligent attitude of OPs forced the complainant to indulge in present unnecessary litigation.
8.     The stand taken by the OP No.1 is that the amount in question has already been refunded as product ordered by the complainant was not sold by the seller therefore, no fault on its part. Wherever, the OP No.2 has contented that being a service provider nowhere it is connected for the deficiency in service in the present case.
9.     After going through the evidence on record, it is abundantly clear that the complainant paid amount in question on 15.10.2020 as per Annexure C-1 & C-2. Undoubtedly, the amount in question was refunded to the complainant as per Annexure C-5 by OP No.1 on 04.01.2021 i.e., after the filing of the present case i.e., 21.02.2020. Hence, in our opinion the act of OPs for non-honouring their own promise to sell the product at the offered price, later non-refunding the amount in question and finally refunding the same after forcing the complainant in the present unnecessary litigation proves deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of ₹2500/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay ₹1500/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

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

			Sd/-
01/02/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member