Delhi

North East

CC/186/2021

SAHIL VATS - Complainant(s)

Versus

FLIPKART - Opp.Party(s)

19 Mar 2024

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. 186/21

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Sahil Vats R/oC 1262, LIG DDA flats Chitrakoot, East of Loni Road, North East Delhi-110093		Complainant
		Versus
	1.                 2.	Flipkart Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. Buildings Alyssa, Begonia and Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru 560103, Karnataka, India     Hydtel Retails Sales Luminary Lifestyle Pvt. Plot No. 34, Syno3(P), Road No. 69F, Huda Enclave, Nandagiri Hills Layour Jubilee Hills Hyderabad Telangana 500033   Also at:- Registered Address Luminary Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.4, 4th Floor, “Fantasy Square” Door No. 2-1/6/FS/IV/4, Gachibowli Hyderabad Telangana 500081		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		06.12.21 30.01.24 19.03.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint against Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. and Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Hydtel Retails Sales,

Luminary Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. alleging deficiency in services.

 

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is on 28.10.21 Complainant ordered Realme GT Master Edition (Voyager Grey, 128 GB) from Opposite Party 1 which is flipkart (an online marketing place). The said order was scheduled to be delivered on 31.10.21 but not delivered accordingly. The Complainant contacted customer care of flipkart only to be assured that the order will be delivered within one week but the order was again not delivered. Therefore, Complainant continued to contact flipkart customer care several times but all in vain. On 20.11.21 Complainant received call from flipkart and they assured that order will received by Complainant 22.11.21 and on 22.11.21 they again called Complainant and stated that order has been cancelled and requested the Complainant to placenew order. It is submitted by the Complainant that he had placed the previous order in Diwali sale and the new order will be costlier for him.It is alleged that as the Complainant did not receive the order, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of mental harassment and he also prayed for litigation expenses.

 

 

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party No.1 takes preliminary objection that Opposite Party No.1 i.e. flipkart is electronic market place model e-commerce entity which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. These sellers are separate entity and for any act of such sellers, the marketplace e-commerce platform cannot be held liable. Opposite Party No.1 only acts as an intermediary through its web interface and provides a medium to various sellers to offer for sale to the users. On merits, it is contended that the whole grievance of the Complainant is regarding non-receipt of the subject mobile phone ordered and the product was purchased from Opposite Party No.2, the seller. The grievance of the Complainant was duly escalated to the seller and as per the information from seller the order was cancelled by independent seller due to an unforeseen issue observed by the courier service provider. It is also submitted that the Complainant was forwarded complete refund by the seller and was requested by the seller to place a new order within 10 days and as a good gesture, the Complainant was provided a gift card worth Rs. 2,000/-on the delivery of new order. It is contended that the Complainant was adamant on previous order which was not possible technically as the order was cancelled by logistics service provider and that has not been impleaded in the present case. Opposite Party No. 1 states that they tried to resolve the issue in its capacity as intermediary, hence cannot be held liable for deficiency in services.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. The contention of Opposite Party No.2 is that Opposite Party No. 1 and the seller are distinct and separate entity from Opposite Party No.2. It is also submitted that the Complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands and suppressed the material facts misleading the Commission. It has been submitted that the alleged delay was caused on the part of third party Courier service provider which is not impleaded as party. It is also submitted that the refund was also successfully credited in the account of the Complainant. Hence, it shows that there is no deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.2.

Rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Partiesand has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaintfiled his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

6. In order to prove their case, Opposite Party No.1 filed affidavit of Ms. Sanchi Chhabra, Authorized Representative of Opposite Party No.1, and Opposite Party No.2 filed affidavit of Sh. Sutinder Singh, Authorized Signatory of Opposite Party No.2wherein the averments made in the written statements of Opposite Parties have been supported. It is submitted by the Complainant that he had placed the previous order in Diwali sale and the new order will be costlier for him. It is alleged that as the Complainant did not receive the order, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
8. It is the case of the Complainant that he placed an online order for a mobile in Diwali sale on online portal of Opposite Party No. 1 at a discounted price and the order was not delivered as per promised delivery date i.e. on 31.10.21. The Complainant pursued the matter with customer care of Opposite Party No.1 flipkartand the delivery was assured. But, despite repeated promises,said order was not delivered and the Complainant was informed  on 22.11.21 that his order is cancelled by the seller due to some unforeseen circumstance and he was asked to place new order.
9. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. company providing online marketplace is Opposite Party No.1 is an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. It is also submitted that the Complainant was forwarded complete refund by the seller and was requested by the seller to place a new order within 10 days and as a good gesture, the Complainant was provided a gift card worth Rs.2,000/-on the delivery of new order but the Complainant was adamant on previous order which was not possible technically as the order was cancelled by logistics service provider. Opposite Party No.1 states that they tried to resolve the issue in its capacity as intermediary, hence cannot be held liable for deficiency in services. While the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the seller’s contention is that the alleged delay was caused on the part of third party Courier service provider which is not impleaded as party. It is also submitted that the refund was also successfully credited in the account of the Complainant.
10.  The perusal of the material on record reveals that in support of his case,the Complainant has filed a certain documents with his complaint namely Invoice copy of the mobile, tracking status, sms as a payment receipt, copy of his Aadhar card and certain links on Google drive for accessing mails and chats and audio conversations. During the pendency of complaint, the Complainant also filed a CD in support of his case. The Complainant has also filed his evidence by way of providing one link to be opened.
11.  It is pertinent to mention here that the Complainant has supported his case byelectronic documents such as invoice copy or copy of order placed and other documents and the Complainant has not filed an affidavit under Section-65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 proving those electronic records.
12. It has been contended by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant was forwarded complete refund by the seller and was requested by the seller to place a new order within 10 days and as a good gesture, the Complainant was provided a gift card worth Rs.2,000/-on the delivery of new order but the Complainant was adamant on previous order which was not possible technically as the order was cancelled by logistics service provider.
13. The Complainant has admitted in his respective rejoinders to the replies of Opposite Parties that complete refund was received by him and gift voucher of Rs.2,000/- was also provided on the delivery of new order. It is also confirmed by the Complainant that he did not opt for the fresh order as new deal would have proved him costly due to price hike.
14. Since the Complainant has not been able to prove his case as he has given a link to be accessed and opened as evidence which we do not consider proper evidence. The Complainant has neither filedproper evidence nor has he filed the certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act 1872 which is pre requisite for the admissibility of electronic evidence/documents. The contentions raised by the Complainant in the complaint have not been substantiated /corroborated by sufficient documentary evidence and the onus being on the Complainant to prove his case, the Complainant has failed to discharge the onus. Moreover, the Complainant has also received the complete refund. The Opposite Parties also provided Gift voucher of Rs.2,000/-on the delivery of new order which the Complainant himself declined.
15. In view of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view thatno case is made out for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices against the Opposite Parties and as such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
16. Order announced on 19.03.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)                 Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President