DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 255
Instituted on: 02.06.2017
Decided on: 12.10.2017
Gursewak Singh S/O Balbir Singh, resident of Ward No.3, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Flipkart.com No.447/B, 1st A Cross, 12th Main, 4th Block, Opposite BSNL Telephone Exchange, Koramangala, Bangalore 560034 Karnataka India through its Managing Director.
2. Blue Dart Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400099.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Sandip Goyal, Advocate.
For OP No.1 : Shri J.S.Moudgill, Advocate.
For OP No.2 : Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Gursewak Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he availed the services of the OPs by placing an order for Lenovo Vibe K5 note (Gold 64 GB) mobile set on 1.5.2017, which was delivered to the complainant on cash on delivery basis on 6.5.2017 and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.12,999/-. It is further averred that there was an offer from the Ops that the mobile set can be replaced within a period of ten days. The case of the complainant is that he sent a return request to the Ops because there was battery problem in the mobile set in question and the mobile set in question was also picked up by the OP number 2 on 9.5.2017, which was duly delivered to the OP number 1, but the grievance of the complainant is that despite that the Op number 1 did not refund the due amount of Rs.12,999/- to the complainant. Though the complainant requested the OP number 1 so many times for refund of the amount, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund/pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.12,999/- alongwith interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has suppressed the material facts and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant is not a consumer and that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP number 1. On merits, it is stated that the OP is running online business in the name of Fipkart.com, but the remaining allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
3. In reply filed by Op number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the OP number 2 has entered into an agreement with Flipkart to carry shipments of Flipkart from the point of origin to the destination as specified. That the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complaint is devoid of any material particulars and has been field with ulterior motive. On merits, it is admitted that the OP number 2 picked up the consignment from Bangalore on 6.5.2017 and delivered to the complainant on 9.5.2017 in packed condition. It is further admitted that the consignment was again picked up from the complainant on 10.5.2017 in open condition and delivered to the OP on 15.5.2017 at Hyderabad. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 copy of the bill, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-9 copies of emails and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP1/1 copy of resolution, Ex.OP1/2 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of receipt, Ex.OP2/3 copy of agreement and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the documents produced on the file by the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
6. It is not in dispute that the complainant got booked a Lenovo Vibe K5 Note (Gold 64 GB) mobile set with the OP on 3.5.2017 for Rs.12,999/-, as is evident from the copy of tax invoice, Ex.C-2. It is further not in dispute that the complainant got cancelled the order in question and returned the mobile set in question to the OP number 1 through OP number 2 as is evident from the reverse pick up receipt dated 9.5.2017, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4 and further Ex.Op2/2 is the copy of receipt showing the delivery of the shipment by Op number 2 to OP number 1 on 15.5.2017 But, in the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that despite all this and returning of the mobile set in question by the complainant through OP number 2 to OP number 1 on 15.5.2017, the OP number 1 did not refund the amount of Rs.12,999/- to the complainant. Ex.C-4 is the copy of reverse pick up receipt dated 9.5.2017, which clearly reveals that the OP number 1 has already received the mobile set in question on 15.5.2017, as is evident from the copy of document Ex.Op2/2. It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 1 has slept over the matter after receipt of the mobile set in question through OP number 2 and has been sending the emails to the complainant that the parcel will be picked up by the Op number 2 by 24.5.2017, whereas the parcel in question has already been picked up by the Op number 2 on 9.5.2017 as is evident from the copy of receipt Ex.C-4. In the circumstances, we feel that since the OP number 1 has received the product in question in return, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP number 1 is liable to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.12,999/-, which the Op number 1 has illegally withheld without assigning any reason thereof. As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1.
7. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 1 to refund/pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.12,999/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 9.5.2017 till realisation. We further direct the OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.
8. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
October 12, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
