Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/446/2022

Rashi Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart.com - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

25 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/446/2022
Date of Institution	:	20/04/2022
Date of Decision	:	25/07/2023

 

Rashi Jindal, R/o H.No.1242, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Flipkart.com, registered office, Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd., Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala Industrial Layout, Bangalore KA 560034 in through its Managing Director.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Deepak Jaglan, Counsel for OP.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased a “Logitech MK235 Mouse & Keyboard Combo” from OP and paid the amount of Rs.1,145/-was delivered on 26.03.2022. The package was supposed to contain 1 keyboard, 1 mouse, 1 wireless receiver, user documents, 2 AAA batteries for keyboard, 1 AA batteries for mouse. However, the mouse, wireless receiver and AA battery for mouse were missing from the package (Annexure C-1 colly). Thereafter, the complainant raised first complaint as return request with the seller (Flipkart.com) on 28.03.2022 explaining the reason for return. The OP simply rejected that return request without any concrete reason. After that complainant raised multiple return and replacement requests and called customer care to follow-up. Over call, OP customer care agents always agreed to process the return, but the backend team rejected the return request later without any concrete reason. Hence, is the present complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the actual seller of the product is a third-party seller (which is not impleaded as a party) and not the answering OP herein. It is also submitted that there is no relation between the seller and the answering OP as both are the separate and distinct entities. The product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by the answering OP and the answering OP has no role in providing warranty/replacement of the product sold by an independent seller through the Flipkart platform of the answering OP. It is further submitted that the grievance of the complainant should have been only against the seller of the product (which is not impleaded as a party). It is also submitted that when the ID proof of the complainant was checked then the return was rejected by the seller citing return fraud on 30.03.2022, 02.04.2022 and 05.04.2022. Later, a detailed investigation also took place when again the return request was raised by the complainant on 06.04.2022, however, the same was rejected by seller citing returns fraud detailed investigation. The complainant was duly informed about the reasons for cancellation every time. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended By the OP.
3.     Rejoinder on behalf of complainant not filed despite of the opportunity given. Hence, opportunity to file rejoinder was closed vide order dated 25.05.2023 by order of this Commission.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The sole grouse of the complainant through present complaint is that she ordered “Logitech MK235 Mouse & Keyboard Combo” from OP and paid the amount of Rs.1,145/-, but received incomplete items. When she requested OP to return the product, the return request was cancelled by OP. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
7.     The stand taken by OP is that, it is only an online platform and seller has not been made party to the present complaint. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part and present complaint deserves to be dismissed.
8.     After going through the documents on record, it is evident that complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,145/- to buy “Logitech MK235 Mouse & Keyboard Combo” from OP. As per the allegation of complainant there is not even a single document in form of any SMS/email placed on record that matter with regard to the incomplete order has been reported to the OP. Neither such SMS/email sent either by complainant or the response of OP is on record. The complainant’s allegations seems hollow & without merit in absence of any such substantial document.
9.     In view of the above discussion, the complainant has not been able to prove his case.  Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.   

			Sd/-
25/07/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member