Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/317

Jatin Honda - Complainant(s)

Versus

FlipKart.com - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

24 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 317 of 08.05.2015

Date of Decision            :   24.11.2015

 

Jatin Handa s/o Shri Tarsem Handa resident of Kothi No.23, Bawa Colony, Ajit Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana. (Punjab).

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.Flipkart.Com, WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Tikri Kalan, Rohtak Road, Opp. Sai Mandir, Tikri, Delhi, India-900002, through its Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2.Flipkart.Com, Regd. Office : WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Ozane Manay Tech Park, No.56/18, ‘B’ Block, 9^th Floor, Garebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka, India, through its Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

…Opposite parties

 

                             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        In person

For OPs                         :        Sh.Jatinderdeep Singh, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Sh.Jatin Handa against Ops by claiming that he purchased LED of 32 inches (VU Luxury Televisions–Model : LED-32K160M-Android) for a sum of Rs.24,990/-. Rebate of Rs.2500/- on account of exchange discount was also agreed to be given. After such rebate of exchange, complainant paid Rs.22,490/- to Ops for purchase of above said LED through invoice dated 17.10.2014. Thereafter, complainant found as if on the box of purchased product, MRP (inclusive of all taxes) mentioned as Rs.22,000/-. It is claimed that Ops have charged Rs.2990/- as excess amount from the complainant intentionally and deliberately. Ops have not bothered to refund of Rs.2990/- and that is why, notice had to be sent to the Ops through counsel Sh.R.K.Dhingra, Advocate, Ludhiana. Complainant seeks compensation on account of mental harassment of Rs.50,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

2.                 In joint written statement filed by OP1 and OP2, it is pleaded interalia as if OP1 is an online retail reseller and one of its registered sellers is in the marketplace of website www.flipkart.com. The complaint alleged to be filed for harassing the Ops. No consumer dispute exists. It is claimed that there was a price error on the website “Flipkart.com”, which was inadvertent and not intentional. Admittedly, exchange discount offer of Rs.2500/- was given and that is why complainant paid Rs.22,490/- against price of Rs.24,990/-. It is claimed that OP1 immediately informed the complainant that excess charged amount will be refunded back on the submission of bank account details by the complainant. Legal notice was duly responded through registered post reply dated 1.12.2014. Ops have duly credited an amount of Rs.2000/- as promotional balance in the complainant’s online wallet account with Flipkart.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Mrs.Anushree Saksena, Authorized signatory of OPs and then closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments submitted by both the parties, but oral arguments have been heard today and file gone through carefully.

6.                It is vehemently contended by the complainant that amount of Rs.2990/- has been intentionally charged as excess amount and as such, Ops have adopted an unfair trade practice. That submission strongly opposed by counsel for the Ops by contending that due to inadvertent mistake, the said amount of Rs.2990/- was charged and that is why, letter Ex.RX was sent for intimating the complainant that refund of Rs.2990/- will be done and process in that respect has been initiated. However, Ex.RX is sent by the Ops in response to the legal notice Ex.C5 sent by the complainant through counsel. There is no material produced on record to establish that Ops before service of notice Ex.C5 agreed to refund the excess charged price amount of Rs.2990/- . So,   deficiency  in  service  on  the  part of Ops is there.

7.                As complainant has to bear the expenses on getting notice Ex.C5 served and even he has to bear the expenses for the purchase of papers and payment of the prescribed fee, so, it will be fit and appropriate to allow litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-.

8.                Complainant has to approach this Forum for refund of the excess charged amount and as such certainly he has suffered mental pain and agony and even has to exert physically. There is no dispute with regard to produced documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 because purchase of LED in question on payment of Rs.22,990/- is an admitted fact. In view of the above circumstances, compensation of Rs.5000/- needs to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that Ops will refund Rs.2990/-, the excess charged amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of the order. Compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- also allowed in favour of complainant and against Ops. All these payments be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of the order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)                         (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                   President

Announced in Open Forum

On 24.11.2015

Gurpreet Sharma