Delhi

West Delhi

CC/23/214

Ashutosh Srivastava - Complainant(s)

Versus

FLIPKART ONLINE SERVICES Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-III: WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

C-BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PANKHA ROAD, JANAK PURI

NEW DELHI

 

Complaint Case No.214/2023

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

S/O G.C. SRIVASTAVA

R/O HOUSE NO. 282, STREET NO. 6

NEAR COMMUNITY CENTRE, RANHOLA,

NANGLOI, NEW DELHI 110041                                                             ... COMPLAINANT

                                                                       VERSUS

 

FLIPKAR ONLINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

BEARING THE REGISTERED OFFICE ADDRESS AS :

VAISHNAVI SUMMIT, GROUND FLOOR,

7^TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK,

KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT,

BANGLORE KA 560034                                                                             …OPPOSITE PARTY

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:           DATE OF DECISION:

15.05.2023 28.08.2023 29.08.2023

 

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms.Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

 

 

ORDER

 

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against OP for having ordered 1 black dragon 620/UV 160 watt handheld Bluetooth mega phone for Rs. 1299/- on 29.09.2021 but receiving a  different and inferior product megaphone of Syskonics on 26.09.2021. The said product never got replaced by OP despite several follow-up calls and therefore complainant is seeking damages of Rs. 2 lakh apart from compensation of Rs. 1,31,983/- along with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum from OP by way of present complaint.

 

2. On stage of admission vide order dated 17.07.2023, he was directed to satisfy the Bench on the maintainability of the complainant on the grounds of locus as well as territorial jurisdiction as the address mentioned in Adhar of Complainant is of Chandigarh and the invoice issued by OP for the product in question bears shipping address as well as billing address in the name of one Girish Chand Shrivastava and the address mentioned on the invoice is totally different of that mentioned in the memo of parties. Complainant has again relied upon the rent agreement of the said address which is photocopy but bearing the original signature of the complainant and thought the tenancy commencement date is written as 01.08.2023 the attestation by notary public is dated 27.08.2023 and even otherwise the complaint pertains to period of 2021 on which date the address on which date address on invoice is of a different person and different address. Clearly the rent agreement is of August, 2023 and therefore shall not be treated for the purpose of complaint to be admitted for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction by this commission.

 

 

3. Since the product was booked and shipped in the name of one Girish Chand Shrivastav and not by the complainant as per the invoice generated by OP and since the address of the complainant in Adhar is that of Chandigarh neither does he have locus to file the present complaint nor is maintainable on territorial jurisdiction. Therefore on both these grounds the complaint is dismissed in limine. No order has to cost.

 

4. Let a copy of this order be given to complainant free of cost after receiving the application for the certified copy as per the direction received from the Hon’ble State Commission.

 

5. File be consigned to record room.

 

6. Announced on 29.08.2023. 

 

 

Richa Jindal                     Anil Kumar Koushal                   Sonica Mehrotra

MEMBER                               MEMBER                               PRESIDENT