Flipkart V/S Ambika Sachdeva - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Karnal

CC/681/2022

Ambika Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart - Opp.Party(s)

Sudip Diwan

08 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

Complaint No. 681 of 2022

Date of instt.01.12.2022

Date of Decision:08.11.2024

Ambika Sachdeva, resident of house no.2001 Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal. PIN 132001. Aadhar no.9890 7771 6431.

…….Complainant.

Versus

Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Building Alyssa, begonia and Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengalurue, 560103, Karnataka, India.

…..Opposite Party.

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

Argued by: Shri Sudip Diwan, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Pawandeep Kalyana, counsel for the OP.

(Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:

The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is a professional working with an MNC and is a Flipkart Plus Customer having registered account on flipkart. OP is an e-commerce retailer engaged in the business of retailing consumer electronics, lifestyle products, fashion, home essentials, etc. Complainant had availed services of the OP by ordering products from their website i.e.

2. On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP provides an online market place platform/technology and /or other mechanism/service to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions, electronic commerce for various goods, by and between respective buyers and sellers and enables them to deal in various categories of goods including but not limited to mobiles, camera, computers, watches, clothes, footwear, healthcare and personal products, home appliances, electronics etc. It is further pleaded that the said flipkart platform is an electronic platform, which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transaction between independent third-party sellers and independent end customers. The independent third-party sellers use the flipkart platform to list, advertise and offer to sell their products to the users/buyer who visit the Flipkart platform. Once a buyer accepts the offer of sale of the products made by the third-party seller on the flipkart platform, the seller is intimated electronically and is required to ensure that the products are made available and delivered in accordance to the delivery terms as per the terms for sale displayed by seller on the flipkart platform. It is further pleaded that the OP does not directly or indirectly sell any products on the flipkart platform. Rather all the products on the flipkart platform are sold by third party sellers, who avail of the online marketplace services provided by the OP, on terms decided by the respective sellers only. In the present case, complainant has alleged that a low quality product was delivered to the complainant. The grievance should have been only against the seller and manufacturer of the product (who are not impleaded as a party). The product delivery and replacement/refund is only provided by the seller as the product was sold by an independent third-party seller and the product is manufactured by Kuvings Company. Further, OP has no knowledge whether the original and intact product was delivered to the complainant or not, as the OP has no role/involvement in delivering the said product to the complainant at his address and it is submitted that the third party seller is responsible for the delivery of the product. It is settled proposition of law the liability to deliver product at the address provided by the complainant rests with Seller and further for defect in the product or service issue rests with the manufacturer. It is further pleaded that OP checked the previous purchasing history of the user i.e. complainant, then it was found that the user had an unusually high number of returns. Hence, the return was rejected by the seller citing return fraud. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. Parties then led their respective evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copies of tax invoices Ex.C1 to Ex.C7, screenshots regarding return of the products Ex.C8 to Ex.16, copy of email dated 22.10.2022 Ex.C17, copy of email dated 07.10.2022 Ex.C18, copy of screenshot depicting return request cannot be fulfilled Ex.C19, screenshot of complaint on flipkart app dated 10.10.2022 Ex.C20, screenshot dated 09.10.2022 Ex.C21 and closed the evidence on 11.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5. On 21.02.2024, learned counsel for the OP has suffered a statement to the effect that written statement filed by the OP be read part and parcel of evidence on behalf of OP.

6. We have heard the learned for the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7. Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 23.09.2022, complainant placed an order for purchasing of some product amounting to Rs.25513/- from the OPs through online. Out of these products some products did not meet the expectations of the complainant. Complainant placed the return request to the OP but OP blocked the return request of complainant and restrained her from returning the products. Complainant wrote several emails and lodged several complaints in this regard but OP did not resolve the problem of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customer. In the said complaint, the actual seller of the product is a third party seller and not the OP. Complainant has not impleaded the seller and manufacturer as a party, which are the necessary parties. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal the complaint.

9. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10. Complainant has alleged that on 23.09.2022, he placed an order for purchasing of some product amounting to Rs.25513/- from the OPs through online. Out of these products some products did not meet the expectations of the complainant. Complainant placed the return request to the OP but OP blocked the return request of the complainant and restrained her from returning the products and did not resolve the problem of complainant. The onus to prove her case was relied upon the complainant but she has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant has alleged that out of products some products did nt meet her expectations but complainant has failed to explain which products were not as per her expectations. Rather, OP has alleged that return /replacement is the responsibility of the seller and or the manufacturer only. OP is only an intermediary not the seller and manufacturer of the products. Thus, the return request of complainant cannot be fulfilled by the OP. OP further alleged that OP checked the previous purchasing history of the complainant, then it was found that complainant had an unusually high number or returns. So the return was rejected by the seller citing return fraud. Complainant has not rebutted the said plea taken by the OP.

11. Complainant has not impleaded the seller and manufacturer of the products in question as a parties in the present complaint, which are necessary parties being seller and manufacturer. The products were manufactured by manufacturer but complainant alleged that the same were not as per her expectations. Thus, only the manufacturer who could replace the products but complainant did not implead the manufacturer as a party. Thus, the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

12. Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced