Mr. Zishan Ahmad filed a consumer case on 22 Jul 2023 against Flipkart in the Bokaro Consumer Court. The case no is CC/230/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 22 Jul 2023.
Jharkhand
Bokaro
CC/230/2022
Mr. Zishan Ahmad - Complainant(s)
Versus
Flipkart - Opp.Party(s)
Amardeep Jha and Poonam
22 Jul 2023
ORDER
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro
Date of Filing-29-12-2022
Date of final hearing-22-07-2023
Date of Order-22-07-2023
Case No. 230/2022
Mr. Zishan Ahmad S/o Irsad Alam,
R/o Raja Bazar Govindupur F Bokaro Thermal,
District- Bokaro, Jharkhand
Vrs.
Flipkart, Building Alyssa, Begonia & Clover, Embassy Tech Village,
Outer Ringh Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru,
Bangalore, Karnataka 560103
Present:-
Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President
Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Sr.Member
Smt. Baby Kumari, Member
PER- J.P.N Pandey, President
-:Order:-
Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased one Plue Mobile Model 10R 5G on 20.05.2022 through Flipkart on Rs. 39,028/- including shipping charge of Rs. 29/- with invoice. Further case is that said set was received on 23.05.2022 to the complainant but it was found that set is of another brand, old mobile with broken handset for which request for return was made repeatedly but O.P. gave unreasonable and unjustified reasons and failed to return it rather has intentionally blocked the account of the complainant, hence this case has been filed with prayer to direct the O.P. to pay Rs. 39,028/- to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
O.P. appeared and has filed W.S. with assertion that case has been filed by the complainant by suppression of true and material facts with misleading facts in which this O.P. is only intermediary having no role in sale of the article concerned rather seller of the mobile set is “M/s KIAAN Marketing” to whom complainant has not made party. Further reply is that the product was purchased from third party seller, this O.P. never came in possession of the actually ordered product or wrong product at any point of time but without impleading the seller of the product this case has been filed against this O.P. who is not liable at all. As per policy of the company seller is responsible for the deficiency in service if any, hence this case is liable to be dismissed.
Point for determination is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed?
On careful perusal of the papers annexed with the complaint petition it appears that Annexure –A is the print out of order place, Annexure-B is request for return of the article, Annexure-C is the closure of the return request and except it there is no any other paper or evidence has been brought on record by the complainant.
Complainant has not produced the tax invoice by which concerned mobile handset was purchased. There is no any evidence on record to prove that the product received was not the same as it was ordered. There is no any evidence on record to prove that the product was found damaged. There is no any evidence of any technical expert to prove about defective handset or the handset supplied was not ordered or damage of the item purchased. In this way this case is liable to be dismissed on these grounds.
It is very much clear that Flipkart is not the seller of the goods rather it is providing E-marketing platform to the different sellers to sale their products. Since invoice of the article purchased has not been brought on record hence complainant has tried to suppress some material facts. However, by filing W.S. O.P. has disclosed the name of seller but complainant has not taken any attempt to implead the seller as O.P. of the case, who was necessary party to the case. In this way this case is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
In the result we are of the view that complainant failed to prove his case hence this case is being dismissed with cost.
Sd/-
(J.P.N. Pandey)
President
Sd/-
(B.P.L Das)
Sr. Member
Sd/-
(Baby Kumari)
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.