Haryana

Karnal

CC/76/2023

Rakesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Online Services Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shubham Kalia

18 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 76 of 2023

                                                        Date of instt.30.01.2023

                                                        Date of Decision:18.04.2024

 

Rakesh aged about 25 years son of Shri Ilam Singh, resident of house no.521, Dacher Road Gonder, Nissing, District Karnal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Flipkart Online Services Pvt. Ltd., registered office: no.447/C, 1^st floor, 1^st A Cross, 12^th main, 4^th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034-India, through its MD/CEO/Authorized Signatory.
2. Shahida Soap & Crockery, shop no.1, Azmi Apartment, near Diamond Hotel, Dudh Baudi, Bhiwandi-421302, Maharashtra through its proprietor/partner/authorized Signatory.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Shubham Kalia, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Pawandeep Kalyana, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    OP no.2 exparte.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that on 21.10.2022, complainant had placed online order no.OD126316616561936000 for purchasing a Pletain Fruit Juicer Electric Machine to OP no.1 i.e. Flipkart and after giving aforesaid order, the OP no.1 had sent aforesaid Juicer at desirable Place of the complainant, which was product of the OP no.2 and the complainant had paid the cost of the said Juicer to the tune of Rs.804/- including GST to the company of OP no.1, vide invoice no.FAKAT32300000193 dated 21.10.2022.  After receipt of the said product, complainant started using the said juicer but it was not working and found defective, even was not showing power on and was totally dead and is not useful for the complainant in any manner. Complainant contacted the OP no.1 and made a complaint to replace the said juicer and thereafter OP no.1 had given assurance that the matter would be resolved within short span in time. Thereafter, complainant requested the OP no.1 several times to replace the said juicer with new one but Op no.1 did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and have not replaced the defective product. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP provides an online market place platform/technology and /or other mechanism/service to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic commerce for various goods, by and between respective buyers and sellers and enables them to deal in various categories of goods including but not limited to mobiles, camera, computers, watches, clothes, footwear, healthcare and personal products, home appliances, electronics etc. It is further pleaded that the said flipkart platform is an electronic platform, which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transaction between independent third-party sellers and independent end customers. The independent third-party sellers use the flipkart platform to list, advertise and offer to sell their products to the users/buyer who visit the Flipkart platform. Once a buyer accepts the offer of sale of the products made by the third-party seller on the flipkart platform, the seller is intimated electronically and is required to ensure that the products are made available and delivered in accordance to the delivery terms as per the terms for sale displayed by seller on the flipkart platform. It is further pleaded that  the OP does not directly or indirectly sell any products on the flipkart platform. Rather all the products on the flipkart platform are sold by third party sellers, who avail of the online marketplace services provided by the OP, on terms decided by the respective sellers only. In the present case, it can be evidenced that the actual seller of the product is a third-party seller i.e. OP no.2 and not the OP herein. Hence, the request for replacement/refund made by the complainant cannot be fulfilled by OP.  The liability of refund/replacement of the product is with the seller and not with the OP. The complainant has wrongly arrayed the OP as a party in the present complaint. It is further pleaded that the complainant raised the request for replacement of the product in question and the request of complainant was approved and new product was delivered on 27.10.2022 by the seller. OP had conveyed the same to complainant. Thereafter, there was no contact with the complainant as the complainant did not contact the OP till four months. The complainant has approached the OP for alleged issue after almost four months from the date of delivery of replacement, thus making the OP unable to connect with the seller (OP no.2) regarding these issues. The return/replacement policy of the product provided by the seller has also ended till that time. The complainant has concealed this information in the content of the complaint and has presented the conversation in twisted manner and the seller is only responsible for delivery/refund/replacement of the product. OP is only an online intermediary and not the seller/manufacturer/distributor of the product. Hence, the OP had no responsibility/liability to deliver the product/item to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 01.06.2023 of the Commission.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill dated 21.10.2022 Ex.C1, copy of screen shots of chat with flipkart Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, copy of aadhar card of complainant Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 12.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, on 23.10.2023, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has suffered a statement to the effect that the written statement filed by the OP no.1 be read as evidence on behalf of the OP.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

8.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had placed an order of Juicer to the OP no.1 but the said juicer found defective one and was not working properly. Complainant made several requests to OPs to replace the said defective juicer or to refund of the cost of the same but OPs did not pay any attention to the request of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the OP does not directly or indirectly sell any products on the flipkart platform. Rather all the products on the flipkart platform are sold by third party sellers, who avail of the online marketplace services provided by the OP. The actual seller of the product is a third-party seller and not the OP. The liability of refund/replacement of the product is with the seller and not with the OP. The request for replacement of the product in question was approved and new product was delivered on 27.10.2022 by the seller to the complainant. On receipt of the product, complainant did not contact the OP till four months and concealed the said facts from this Commission for the reason best known to him. The unit in question was not having any defect and prayed for dismissal of the complaint

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           On 21.10.2022, complainant placed an order with the OP no.1 for purchase of one Pletain Fruit Juicer Electric Machine, amounting to Rs 804/-. Complainant received the said juicer but it was found defective one and complainant requested to replace the same but as per complainant OPs have not replaced it. On the other hand, OP no.1 has alleged that the product has been replaced with new one and after that complainant has not made any complaint with regard to the defect in the juicer. The onus to prove with regard to defect in the juicer was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on the file to prove that the juicer in question was having any defect and complainant has handed over the same to the OPs for replacement. Complainant has also filed another complaint titled as Rakesh Vs. Flipkart etc.  on the ground that the cream purchased by him from the OPs “wrong item/cream  and no useful for the complainant”. It appears that complainant has filed the present complaint is bundle of lies and has been filed only in order to extract money from the OPs.   

12.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated: 18.04.2024

 

  President,       

             District Consumer Disputes                          

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                      (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Suman Singh)        

                          Member                          Member