Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/263

Sonu - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Atul Gupta

22 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

C.C. No. :               263 of 2019

Date of Institution:   21.10.2019

Date of Decision :     22.06.2022

 

Sonu aged about 30 years son of Sh Nitya Nand, c/o Chamber No.117, District Courts, Faridkot and resident of Tari Wali Gali, Himmatpura Basti, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

                                               .......Complainant

Versus

1. Flipkart Internet Private Limited, through its Managing Director , Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru, 560103, Karnataka, India.
2. Amit Garments c/o Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Buildings Alyssa, Gegonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanhalli Village, Bengaluru, 560103, Karnataka, India.

                     .......Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

C.C. No.- 263 of 2019

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Neeraj Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                   OP-2 Exparte.

 

(ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking directions to OPs to deliver the mobile handset Redmi K20 Pro and to pay the amount of Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-.

2                                                       The brief facts of the present complaint are that on 23.09.2019, when complainant opened the Google Chrome, then a flash message reflected from the official website of OP-1 flipkart.com in which OP-1offered to give mobile handset of make Redmi K20 Pro for Rs.2,999/-against the actual price of Rs.28,000/-and offered to given benefit of about Rs.25,000/-. Accepting the said offer, complainant made order for same and OPs demanded

C.C. No.- 263 of 2019

advance payment of Rs.2,999/-through his Google Pay App from his bank account with Punjab and Sind Bank, Jaitu. Amount was requested to be paid by on Google Pay App and it was duly paid. UPI transaction ID is 926637237149 having code Oid516022@Amitgarments and having Paytm ID NO.45993249@paytm. OPs gave confirmation of transaction vide order ID No.679108 through SMS on his mobile no.94633-95313, but till today, Ops have not delivered the mobile to complainant. OPs have played fraud with him as they have received money from him but have failed to delivered the product in question to him. On 29.09.2019, complainant requested for callback from OP-1 and executive of OP-1made call to complainant but nothing fruitful was done as she was unable to resolve his grievance. Even legal notice dated 04.10.2019,  issued by complainant to OPs also bore no fruit. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and has caused loss, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has prayed for compensation alongwith main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                      The complaint was admitted after hearing and vide order dated 23.10.2019, notice was issued to Opposite Parties to appear in person or through representative to file reply to the complaint.

C.C. No.- 263 of 2019

4                                         OP-1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts to gain unlawful advantage and is therefore, complaint filed by him is liable to be dismissed. It is brought before the Forum that Portal is a marketplace, wherein third party vendors/sellers who wish to use the platform, register themselves as vendors and list their products and offer the said products for sale. There are several third party vendors/sellers that list a variety of products on said portal. Buyers hit the Portal and search for their desired product and purchase the same from the desired seller listed on the Portal for that particular product. It is averred that answering OP is merely a marketplace that offers a platform to third party vendors/sellers and third party buyers to transact interse. And in any manner, it does not engage in any offer for sale or sale of any product either through any online portal or otherwise or at all and portal acts solely as an Intermediary as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It is further averred that being intermediary, answering OP is protected for the acts of third parties on website and is not liable for the acts /omissions of sellers or vendors registered on the portal which can be utilized by users to reach a larger base to buy and sell

C.C. No.- 263 of 2019

products or services. Answering OP only provides a platform and is not involved in any transaction in any way as there is no contractual obligation on their part towards the complainant on issues of non delivery of product and it can not interfere in the transaction of buy and sale. It is further averred that complainant has not purchased anything by using online portal of answering OP and he has never visited their site and it can be seen from the documents attached with the complainant that some fraud has been committed by some third party. It is further averred that complainant has admitted that he visited the site of google chrome then some message reflected on the site and therefore, it is clear that complainant never visited the site of answering OP, rather he has been cheated by some third party site. It is contended that complainant is neither their consumer nor answering OP is manufacturer nor seller nor a logistic partner and further nor the online portal from where the order was placed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                   Registered cover containing complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-2, but it did not receive back undelivered.

C.C. No.- 263 of 2019

Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. Statutory period expired. Despite repeated calls and long waiting till 4 O’clock, when no body appeared in the Commission either in person or through counsel, then vide order dated 23.12.2019, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte.

  6                                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-8 and then, closed the same on behalf of complainant.

6                                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Amrita Pratap Ex OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to Ex OP-1/3 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-1.

7                                               We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

 

C.C. No.- 263 of 2019

8                                               The case of the complainant is that on seeing a message reflected on the official website of OP-1 flipkart.com in which OP-1 offered to give mobile handset of make Redmi K20 Pro for Rs.2,999/-against the actual price of Rs.28,000/-, complainant placed an order for same and on demand of OPs for advance payment of Rs.2,999/-, complainant made payment through his Google Pay App from his bank account. UPI transaction ID is 926637237149 having code Oid516022@Amitgarments and having Paytm ID No.45993249@paytm. Confirmation in respect of transaction, received vide order ID No.679108 through SMS on his mobile, but mobile for which order was placed, has not been delivered to him, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, OP-1 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that    OP-1 only provides a platform and is not involved in any transaction in any way as there is no contractual obligation on their part towards the complainant on issues of non delivery of product and it can not interfere in the transaction of buy and sale. As per OP-1, complainant has not purchased anything by using online portal of OP-1 and even he has never visited their site. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

C.C. No.- 263 of 2019

 9                                            Complainant has placed on record document Ex C-2 that is copy of receipt showing amount of Rs.2,999/-paid by complainant to Amit Garments through UPI Transaction ID of  complainant.  Ex C-3 shows the message sent by OPs to complainant wherein it is clearly mentioned that mobile phone placed under order would be delivered to him within 5 days and it also proves the confirmation of Rs.2,999/-received by OPs. This message is sent to complainant by Flipkart, but OP-1/Flipkart is totally silent about these messages sent by them to complainant. OP-1 has nothing to say about these messages Ex C-3 and Ex C-4 that are sent by OP-1/Flipkart to complainant. There is nothing on record in contradiction to these documents by OP-1. Moreover, it is noticed that OP-1 has not disclosed the name of seller who received the order of mobile in question through OP-1. Documents placed on record prove the grievance of complainant. There is no denial regarding issuance of these messages to complainant by OP-1. Complainant has placed on record sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his case. All these documents produced by complainant are authentic and are beyond any doubt.

10                         Counsel for complainant has placed reliance on citation given by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh

C.C. No.- 263 of 2019

in F A No.A/193/218 titled as Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Pratap and others wherein it is held that “Contention of the appellant that it cannot be burdened with liability, was rejected by the Forum, by noting that the mobile handset was purchased through the appellant, in online transaction. It was boundened duty of the facilitator to ensure that goods sold through any individual are manufactured as per quality standard. If the goods purchased through online are found not up to the mark, online portal through which goods were purchased, cannot escape its liability”

11                                            From the above discussion and keeping in view all the documents and case law placed on record by complainant, this Commission is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1 and OP-2 and both OP-1 and OP-2 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.2,999/-to complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per anum from the date of payment till final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.6,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses incurred by him on present complaint. Compliance of this order be made within one month of date of

C.C. No.- 263 of 2019

receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be liable to initiate proceedings under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 22.06.2020

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member