4. Op no.2 did not appear despite issuance of notice through registered cover and delivery of notice and as none appeared on behalf of op no.2, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
5. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, order information Ex.C1, price details Ex.C2, copies of emails Ex.C3, Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, copies of postal receipt Ex.C6, reply to legal notice Ex.C7, order information of other grocery items etc. Ex.C8, credit note Ex.C9, tax invoices/ bills of supply of grocery items Ex.C10, Ex.C11, order information Ex.C12, tax invoice/ bill of supply of items Ex.C13 and Ex.C14 and order information Ex.C15.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Sheetal, authorized signatory Ex.R1 and guidelines for Foreign Direct Investment on E-commerce Ex.R2. Op no.3 has also tendered affidavit of Ms. Sheetal Tiwari attorney of op no.3 as Ex.R3.
7. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for ops no.1 and 3 and have perused the case file carefully.
8. Learned counsel for complainant argued that despite his confirmed order, ops failed to deliver the order of iphone 12 (128 GB) of blue colour and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of ops. The ops are liable to deliver the mobile in question to the complainant at the same price and complainant is ready to pay the amount of Rs.46,399/- again for the delivery of said mobile in question to the ops and complainant has also suffered unnecessary harassment at the hands of ops for which he is also entitled to compensation and litigation expenses and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops no.1 and 3 i.e. Flipkart Internet Private Ltd and Instakart Services Private Limited has argued that being only logistics company they are only liable to deliver the order if product is received from seller but in the present case product/ order of complainant has never been sent by op no.2 and order has been cancelled by op no.2 being seller which is only liable to redress the grievance of complainant and prayed that ops no.1 and 3 may kindly be discharged from the liability.
10. We have considered the rival contentions of the above said parties. Admittedly, on 02.10.2021 complainant made an order for purchase of mobile of iphone company to op no.2 through op no.1 by paying an amount of Rs.46,399/- through online. At that time there was offer as selling price of the mobile in question was Rs.70,900/- and extra discount of Rs.16,901/- was given by op no.2 and after other special discounts and deducting exchange value for old device of Rs.4700/-, the complainant was to pay an amount of Rs.46,399/- for the said mobile in question as is evident from price details Ex.C2. Op no.2 is seller and retail private limited and which has sold mobile phone in the scheme for consideration of Rs.46,399/- but failed to perform its part of contract as order of complainant has been cancelled and they have refunded amount of Rs.46,399/- to the complainant and order was cancelled without assigning any reasons. Even op no.2 has failed to appear before this Commission and did not bother to contest the present complaint by filing its written version and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Since op no.2 seller of the product in question failed to perform its part of agreement despite receiving amount of Rs.46,399/- from the complainant and cancelled the order without any valid and justified reason and even failed to appear before this Commission, therefore, op no.2 is deficient in service and has caused unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Since op no.2 has refunded consideration price and has failed to supply the mobile phone to the complainant despite confirmation of order of complainant and cancelled the order without assigning any valid and justified reason, therefore, complainant has suffered monetary loss as at that time, the selling price of the mobile was Rs.70,900/- and he was given extra discount of the amount of Rs.16,901/- and other discounts were also given at that time, therefore, complainant has suffered loss of that amount of Rs.16,901/- alongwith other amount of discounts as mentioned in the price details Ex.C2 due to cancellation of his order. So, in our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to lumpsum amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment from op no.2 besides litigation expenses. However, no liability of remaining ops no.1 and 3 is made out as they are just logistics agencies and order has been cancelled by seller i.e. op no.2.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against opposite party no.2 and direct the op no.2 to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service towards complainant. We further direct op no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The op no.2 is directed to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which op no.2 will be liable to pay interest @7% per annum on the total amount of Rs.25,000/- from the date of this order till actual realization. However, complaint qua ops no.1 and 3 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 20.07.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
