Haryana

Panchkula

CC/105/2022

LALIT KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

MONATHAKUR ,NISHA ,ANIKET & RONIT SINGH

12 Jan 2023

ORDER

            BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

Lalit Kumar aged about 24 years son of Shri Ram Saran, resident of shop no.6, Maan Market, Barwala(246) Panchkula, Haryana-143188.

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Ozone Manay Tech Park, # 56/18     & 55/09, 7^th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Banglore-        560068 Karnataka.

2.     Winspire Creations Private Limited, H.B.No.220, Khasra     No.192/1(19-14), 192/2(5-0), (Khata no.86/92), Khata no.63/67,    Khasra no.193(8-9), 195/2, (12-5), Whose registered office is at   Winspir Creations Private Limited, F-32, Kalkaji, New Delhi         registered at Flipkart Internet Private Limited(Platform).                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

                        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

For the Parties:   Ms.Mona Thakur, Nisha, Aniket, Ronit Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                        OPs No.1 & 2 already ex-parte vide order dated 08.06.2022.

ORDER

(Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had placed an order, from his Flipkart account via mobile no.9996291921 at the official website of Flipkart, seeking the delivery of Woodland Boots for Men, on 07.01.2022 from the partner merchants registered on the Flipkart Internet Private Limited(Platform) using the payment option i.e. “Flipkart  Pay Later”(“Payment Option”) extended by IDFC First Bank Limited(“Lender”). The payment for the item i.e. Woodland Boots was to be made later on than the purchase date to the Lender.  It is stated that a wrong product i.e. Red Tape Shoes were delivered, instead of Woodland shoes, as ordered by the complainant. The return request was made on 11.01.2022 on the official link provided by the OP via online mode. The return request was kept under review by the seller but later on it was rejected without providing any sufficient reasons. A return request was again sent by the complainant on 12.01.2022 but the same was again rejected. The complainant received emails on 15.01.2022 and 17.01.2022 from

2.             Notices was issued to the OPs No.1 & 2 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 08.06.2022.

3.             To prove the case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-10 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             During  arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint has contended that the return request made by the complainant qua the wrong delivery of product i.e. Redtape shoes in place of Woodland shoes, has wrongly been kept pending despite sending of several emails by him to OPs. It is contended that the account of the complainant has wrongly been blocked thereby preventing the complainant to lodge any complaint etc. It is further contended that the demand raised by the Ops, for a sum of Rs.4,657/-/or Rs.6,556/- is totally illegal and unjustified and thus, the learned counsel has prayed for  acceptance  of the complainant by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint. 

6.             The OP No.1 & 2 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 08.06.2022 respectively and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             As per invoice dated 10.01.2022(Annexure C-2), it is evident that an order no.OD223834732407000000 was placed by the complainant on 10.01.2022/or the delivery of woodland shoes for Men. As per unrebutted contentions of the complainant, shoes of the Redtape shoes were delivered in place of woodland shoes as ordered by him. As per further unrebutted contentions of the complainant, return request made by him on 11.01.2022 vide email(Annexure C-4) followed by email dated 12.01.2022(Annexure C-5) were kept under review asking him  to wait for three business days. As per email dated 15.01.2022 and 17.01.2022(Annexure C-6 & C-7), certain documents were sought by the OP No.1 but pertinently the return request made by the complainant were not disposed of. Rather, the complainant has been asked, to pay a sum of Rs.4,657/- or/ Rs.6,556/- in lieu of the price of the product. The demand raised by the OP No.1 asking the complainant to make the payment of Rs.6,556/- is totally wrong, invalid and illegal and not justified as the wrong product i.e. Redtape shoes were delivered to him instead of woodland. Therefore, the OPs have been found deficient while rendering services to the complainant for which they are liable jointly and severally to compensate the complainant. Resultantly the present complaint is partly allowed against the OPS No.1 & 2 and they  are directed to accept the return request of the complainant by waiving off of their demand qua the sum of Rs.4,657/- or/ of Rs.6,556/-. The Ops are further directed to reactivate the Flipkart account of the complainant. The OPs are further burdened with a lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,500/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and on litigation charges.  

8.             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 OPs No.1 & 2 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: 12.01.2023

        Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal

                Member                     Member                     President

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

                                            Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini

                                                Member