Haryana

Panchkula

CC/372/2022

KAMAL RATHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

FLIPKART INTERNET PVT.LTD - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

31 Jan 2024

ORDER

            BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	372 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	02.12.2022
Date of Decision	:	31.01.2024

 

 

 

Kamal Rathi, DLF Valley, B1/20, Second Floor, Panchkula, Haryana- 134107

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Buildings Alyssa, begonia and   Clove Embassy tech village, outer ring road, Devarabeesanahalli    village, Bengluru-560103.

2.     Surya Handicrafts road no.4, RllCO, Industrial area Churu Rajasthan- 331001

                                                                                     ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

                        Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

                        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.  

                        OPs No.1 & 2 ex-parte vide order dated 20.02.2023.       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.Brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the  complainant had placed an order no.OD126309653221 on 20.10.2022 on the website belonging to OP No.1 for the delivery a wooden dining set worth Rs.16,057/- and the delivery of the same was to be made on 31.10.2022. It is alleged that the wooden dining set as ordered was not delivered to the complainant; hence, he raised the issue qua non delivery of the same with OP No.1. On 03.11.2022, a call was received from OP No.1, asking the complainant to wait for 24hours. On 14.11.2022, the complainant received another call from customer care of OP No.1, wherein he was asked to wait for another 24hours and he was further informed that in case of non delivery of the product in question, he could cancel the order. It is alleged that the dining set was purchased to give  the same  as gift to her mother-in-law Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.

2.Notices were issued to the OPs through registered post, which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OPs No.1 & 2; hence, they were deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OPs No.1 & 2, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 20.02.2023.

3.To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with document Annexure C-1 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.We have heard the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file, minutely and carefully.

5.During arguments, the complainant has reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in his affidavit dated 17.04.2023(Annexure C-A) as well as his affidavit dated 13.12.2022 (Mark ‘A’) and contended that he had placed an order no. OD126309653221583000 (Annexure C-1) on 20.10.2022 on the website of OP No.1 for the delivery of wooden dining set by paying a sum of Rs.16,057/-. It is contended that the wooden dining set was not sent by OPs despite having received the payment of Rs.16,057/- from him. It is argued by the complainant that he was assured by the executive of OP No.1 vide email correspondence qua resolution of his problem but to no avail and that he did not initiate any refund request but the OPs had refunded the amount of Rs.16,057/- to him on 28.03.2023 as paid by him and thus prayed for grant of compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him.  

6.The OPs have preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite services of notice and accordingly, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.02.2023 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.Evidently, an order no.OD126309653221583000 (Annexure C-1) was placed by the complainant on 20.10.2022 on the website of OP No.1 for the delivery of six seater dining set to him. It is also evident from Annexure C-1 that a sum of Rs.16,057/- was paid by the complainant, while placing the said order. It is further evident that the delivery of the dining set was assured vide Annexure C-1 up to 31.10.2022.  Since  the delivery of the dining set was not made by the OPs to the complainant as assured vide Annexure C-1, he raised the issue on the customer care belonging  to OP No.1, wherein one official, namely, Saiba Shaikh, Flipkart Customer Support vide email dated 02.11.2022(Mark ‘B’) regretted qua non delivery of the wooden set. On 12.11.2022, the complainant again raised the issue, in response to which, one executive, namely, Sh.Mahindra Patil asked the complainant to give his another contact number, thereafter, another executive, namely, Ms. Suman Basavaraj vide email on 14.11.2022(Mark ‘B’) felt sorry qua the inconvenience faced by the complainant. Pertinently, the refund of sum of Rs.16,057/- i.e. the amount, which was paid by the complainant vide Annexure C-1 on 20.10.2022, has been made to the complainant on 28.02.2023. As per unrebutted contentions of the complainant, no refund request was made by him; yet, the OPs had refunded the amount to him. Further, as per the affidavit dated 13.10.2022 Mark ‘A’, the complainant was asked to place fresh order by cancelling the earlier order. As per the said affidavit Mark ‘A’, the price of the product had increased by Rs.12,000/-.

8.From the aforesaid stated factual position, it is found that the OPs had failed to deliver the six(6) seater dining set despite having received  the payment of Rs.16,057/-. Moreover, the assertions and contentions of the complainant have not been rebutted by the OPs. As such, we conclude that the Ops had been deficient, while rendering services to the complainant, for which, they are liable, jointly and severally, to compensate him.

9.Now adverting to the relief, it is found that a sum of Rs.16,057/- has already been refunded by the OPs on 28.02.2023. The said amount as per Annexure C-1 was paid by the complainant on 20.10.2022 so the complainant is entitled to interest over a sum of Rs. 16,057/- w.e.f. 20.10.2022 till 28.02.2023. In addition to it, the complainant is also entitled for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation charges.

10.As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-

1. To pay the amount of interest @ 9% per annum(simple interest)over the sum of Rs.16,057/- to the complainant w.e.f. 20.10.2022 to 28.02.2023.
2. To pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

               

11.The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced on: 31.01.2024

 

 

 

 

         Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav     Dr.Sushma Garg           Satpal

                        Member                   Member               President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                               Satpal

                                          President