| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 93 of 15.3.2017 Decided on: 24.5.2018 Himanshu aged 22 years son of Sh.Parveen Kumar, resident of House No.196, Markel Colony, Near Sanaouri Adda, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. No.42/1&43, Kacherakanahalli, village Jadigenahali Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangaluru-560067 through its Managing Director. 2. Tech Connect Retail Pvt. Ltd. Registered office: Shop No.1, 3rd Floor, Hukum Singh Market, Atta Sector 27, Noida-201301 (Uttar Pradesh) through its Managing Director. 3. Tech Connect Retail Pvt. Ltd., United World Warehouse, Khasra No.1132, Village Mati, Near CRPF Camp, Bijnaur, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh India-226002 through its authorized signatory. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Mandeep Verma,Advocate, counsel for complainant. Sh.Bhimanshu,Advocate, counsel for opposite party No.1 Sh.Ravinder Singh,Advocate, counsel for opposite parties No.2&3. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant, through on-line service, purchased a mobile camera make Canon VW 66094 (“21048075013249”) EOS 700D DSLR from OP no.3 having registered office i.e. OP no.2, for a sum of Rs.35,899/- vide order dated 23.1.2017, which was delivered on 27.1.2017. It is averred that after receiving the parcel, when the complainant opened the said parcel, he found bricks, in the said parcel instead of the said ‘canon camera’ for which he had already made the payment. Immediately, the complainant contacted the OP company through customer care and got registered a complaint regarding the parcel to the customer support executive on 28.1.2017 and 29.1.2017. The complainant contacted Sh.Aditi Patwardhan, Flipkart Customer support on 2.2.2017, Ms. Sonali Kapse,Flipkart Customer Support but he did not receive any proper reply. On 15.2.2017, he got served a registered legal notice upon the OPs but to no use.The complainant underwent a lot of mental agony, harassment and humiliation at the hands of the OP.Ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
- On notice, OPs appeared through their counsels and filed their replies to the complaint.
- In the reply filed by OP no.1, it is submitted that OP no.1 is neither manufacturer nor a seller of the product. It is simply a whole seller of the product and is involved in B2B sales and therefore there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP no.1.After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In the written statement filed by Ops No.2&3, it is submitted that the OPs are re-seller on the website of ‘flipkart.com’ and sell the products of other manufacturers, traders etc. under their respective Trade Marks through the website. Its role is limited to reselling of the products and its role comes to an end as soon as the product ordered is delivered at the address provided by the customer. In the present case, the product in question was delivered to the complainant in a sealed box by Op no.1.Moreover, the complainant has alleged that he has been cheated by the OPs, hence these kind of issues are not maintainable in this Forum and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint with heavy costs.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C15 and the complainant closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OP no.1 had suffered the statement to the effect that the written version , filed by OP no.1 be read as evidence on behalf of OP no.1 and closed the evidence of OP no.1.The ld. counsel for OPs No.2&3 has also suffered the statement to the said effect and closed the evidence of OPs No.2&3.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by them and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1, is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased one camera for a sum of Rs.35,899/- from OPs on 23.1.2017.Ex.C2 are the photographs of the box containing bricks instead of camera. Ex.C4 is the e-mail dated 27.1.2017, sent by Flipkart Customer Service, to the complainant, in which it is written, “We will escalate your issue to the concerned team. We assure you that we will resolve your problem by 29th January,2017.Exs.C5 to C10, are the e-mails sent by the flipkart.com to the complainant. In Ex.C8, OPs have clearly written that the ‘Return request of the complainant has been cancelled”. Whereas the only plea taken by OPs No.2&3 in its written arguments is that the product ordered by the complainant was delivered to the complainant through Op no.1 in a sealed box as it was received from the manufacturer/distributor/Beand and as such OPs No.2&3 cannot be said to be deficient in providing services. Moreover, the complainant has alleged that he has been cheated by the OPs, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and is liable to be dismissed.
- The case of the complainant is that he ordered for the purchase of one Canon camera and on receiving the product, bricks were found in the packet instead of camera. Though he has alleged that he lodged a complaint with the OPs but there is nothing on record in writing in this regard. Even in the e-mails sent by Flipkart. Com, the word, ‘Return Request’ is mentioned. There is nothing on record which may show that the complainant ever made a written complaint to the OPs with regard to receiving of bricks instead of camera ordered by him on 23.1.2016. Today, during the course of arguments, the ld. counsel for Op no.1 argued that the complainant has placed on record only the photographs but has failed to produce on record any video made by him while opening the sealed box to show that instead of camera, bricks were found in the box. Since no cogent and convincing evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove his case, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit, in the complaint, filed by the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED: 24.5.2018 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
