Delhi

North East

CC/147/2021

Deepak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 147/2021

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Deepak S/o Shri Ramesh Singh 650, 13, Nand Nagri ITI, Mandoli North East, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
	Flipkart Sarita Vihar Near Sector-25,Badarpur Block-B, Delhi-110076	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:               ORDER RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF ORDER      :

12.10.2021 29.10.2021 02.11.2021

 

CORAM:

Mr. Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Mr. Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

1. This order shall decide the question of admissibility of the present complaint.
2. The facts as revealed from the complaint are as under:

On 04.10.2021, the Complainant booked Realme GT Master Edition (Cosmos Black, 128 GB) from his mobile no. 9953393087.The cost of the said mobile phone was Rs. 27,999/-. However, the said phone was to be delivered to the Complainant on payment of Rs. 15,650/- under exchange offer. The Complainant made online payment of Rs. 15,650/-.

3. The delivery boy of the Opposite Party came to the Complainant and inspected the mobile phone of the Complainant which the Complainant had to give to the Opposite Party under the exchange scheme. After inspection of the mobile phone of the Complainant, the same was rejected by the delivery boy without assigning any reason. The Complainant contacted the customer care of the Opposite Party but nothing fruitful came out on 08.10.2021, the Complainant received a message from the Opposite Party to the effect that the order of the Complainant was rejected. However, no reason was assigned for the same. Thereafter, when the Complainant contacted customer care of Opposite Party, he was told that the order was cancelled by the seller. The Complainant has prayed for compensation on account of mental harassment and also cost of litigation.
4. We have already heard the complaint on the point of admissibility of the complaint. We have also perused the file. Now, the question is that whether the Complainant is a consumer within the definition of Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
5. The case of the Complainant is that he had booked a phone under the exchange scheme, however, the mobile phone of the Complainant which he had to give to the Opposite Party under the exchange scheme was rejected after its inspection. This means that the deal was not finalized rather it was in the process. The payment which the Complainant had made to the Opposite Party, already refunded by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. Therefore, under these circumstances in our considered opinion, the Complainant is not a Consumer within the definition of Section 2(7) Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable and cannot be admitted.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to Complainant free of cost as per Regulation 21 (1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.

Announced on 02.11.2021

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)              Member   lk

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President