PUSHPENDRA SHARMA. filed a consumer case on 13 Jan 2016 against FLIPKART. in the Panchkula Consumer Court. The case no is CC/203/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 14 Jan 2016.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.
Consumer Complaint No | : | 203 of 2015 |
Date of Institution | : | 24.09.2015 |
Date of Decision | : | 13.01.2016 |
Pushpendra Sharma s/o Sh.Ramakant Sharma, R/o H.No.876, First Floor, Sector-17, Panchkula, Haryana-134108.
….Complainant
Versus
….Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Mr.Dharam Pal, President.
Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.
Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.
For the Parties: Complainant in person.
Mr.Vishal Madaan, Adv., for the Op No.1.
Op No.2 already ex-parte.
ORDER
(ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and
(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission;
It is submitted that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Op No.1. It is submitted that the Op No.1 provided online platform to different registered sellers where the registered sellers advertise their products with specification and sell goods and the visitors/buyers of the website, voluntarily enter into transaction of purchase of various goods from those sellers at their own choice. It is submitted that the user of the website/buyer of goods are bound by the Terms of Use enumerated on the website. It is submitted that on the website i.e. All contractual/commercial terms are offered by and agreed to between the buyer and the seller alone. The contractual/commercial terms include without limitation PRICE, shipping cost, payment method, payment terms, date, period and mode of delivery, warranties related to products and services and after sale services related to products and services. Flipkart does not have any control or does not determine or advise or in any way involve itself in the offering or acceptance of such contractual/commercial terms between the buyer and the seller. It is submitted that the product could not get to the complainant so the Op No.1 was not responsible for the same. It is submitted that the complainant had purchased the product from the web-portal of Flipkart.com and the same was sold by the OP No.2, therefore, it is a contract between the seller i.e. OP No.2 and the buyer i.e. the complainant. It is submitted that the Op No.1 is not the manufacturer of the product. It is submitted that the complainant should approach the manufacturer or the authorized service center of the manufacturer for resolution for any defect. It is submitted that the Op No.1 did not provide any guarantee or warranty on the products. It is denied that vide email dated 17.07.2015, the OP No.1 gave any assurance of replacement of the product by 28.07.2015. It is denied that the Op No.1 vide email mentioned that the replacement shipped to the complainant had got damaged in transit in midway so they were sending the item again. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
13.01.2016 S.P.ATTRI ANITA KAPOOR DHARAM PAL
Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.