Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/643/2019

Sri Deepak Kumar.G.T, S/o Late Thimmareddy, Aged about 25 Years. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jun 2022

ORDER

                                  Filed On:  03/12/2019.

                               Disposed  On: 18/06/2022.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT CHITRADURGA

 

CC No: 643/2019

Dated:18th  JUNE 2022

 

PRESENT:-      Sri.M.I.SHIGLI, PRESIDENT

                                        B.A., LL.M

                            Sri. G.SREEPATHI, MEMBER

                                           B.Com. LL.B    

        Smt.B.H. YASHODA, LADY MEMBER

                                       B.A. LL.B

                                

COMPLAINANT/s:-	Deepak Kumar G.T., S/o.Late Thimmareddy, Aged about 25 years, R/o.Guddada Rangavvana Hally, Chitradurga -577501.    (In-Person) V/s
OPPOSITE PARTY:-	Flipkart, Embassy Tech village, Devarabeesanahally, Bellandur Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru-560103, Karnataka.   (Rep.by Sri.K.A.Nagaraja Reddy, Advocate)

 

 

 

ORDER

Sri.G.SREEPATHI, MEMBER 

 

 

The complainant has filed this complaint u/s.12 of C.P.Act 1986 seeking direction against OP alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP and prays to direct the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and pain and inconvenience and also to pay Rs.15,000/- towards advocate fee and other expenses, total Rs.55,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18%P.A. till the date of payment and to grant such other relief.

 

The brief facts of the complaint are as under;

 

2)     The complainant is permanent resident of Davanagere, he placed an order for supply of KRX PVC 10Kg DMCOMBO on 10.10.2019 to the OP Flipkart and the order ID No: OD116758522994711000. The order is on prepaid basis. Complainant had paid amount through internet banking from his bank account maintained at Karnataka Bank, Chitradurga branch. Complainant has given address for delivery that is Deepak Kumar G.T., Samruddi Nilaya, Basapura Road, Anekonda, Near Bakery, Davanagere, Karnataka.

 

3)     The complainant submits that as per the message received  by complainant from OP, the said material was packed on 14.10.2019 and the same has been sent through Gati Courier to complainant. The OP’s said to have sent the ordered item to Harihara instead of address mentioned in complaint. On efforts made by complainant, failed to track the item. The said item ought to have been delivered to complainant on 19.10.2019. Due to negligence of OP, goods sent to wrong address. With this the goods were not delivered in time as promised by OP. On genuine and honest attempt of complainant to track the item in transit, on enquiry with transporter M/s. Gati Couriers, taken enquiry of complainant and the same has been registered complaint as No.35100106 Dt.28.10.2019. On 29.10.2019 complainant contacted OP and enquired about status of order, OP informed by way of message stating “shipment is cancelled by the seller. Refund of Rs.679/- will be added to your original payment made within 7 days of business (except bank holidays) after pickup is completed. But OPs failed to refund the amount within 7 business days after pickup is completed. The OPs have cancelled order on their own without consumer permission and not refunded the amount of Rs.679/- as promised by OP.

 

4)     Further, the complainant submitted that, at the time of placing order the amount was paid to OPs, they have not made any efforts to contact complainant for delivery of item in time and failed to keep the complainant informed about the status of order from time to time. The cause of action arise on 12.11.2019 OPs failed to deliver the ordered item and failed to refund the amount after cancellation of order by themselves. Hence complainant filed this complaint.

 

5)     Upon service of notice by this commission, OP appeared through his counsel and filed version by denying all the allegations, contentions, submissions and statements to the complaint. Further stated that, Flipkart platform is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transaction between independent third party sellers and independent end customers use. Flipkart platform to list, advertise and offer to sell their products to the users/buyers who visits the Flipkart platform. The OP denied privity of contract between complainant and OP completely and prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost awarded to OPs.

 

6)     Complainant has produced his evidence through affidavit and OP even on providing sufficient time failed to submit his evidence by way of affidavit. Hence case posted for arguments with this both the parties have submitted their written arguments. Arguments of both parties were heard.

 

7)     The points that arise for our consideration are;

1.     Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service by the OPs?

2.     Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought by him?

 

8)     Our findings on the above points are;

        Point No.1-Negative

        Point No.2: As per the final order

 

REASONS

9)     Point No.1:       On perusal of pleading and evidence, it is an admitted fact that complainant has booked the material through online from Chitradurga to his residence at Davanagere. He has paid the amount of Rs.679/- by way of internet banking from his account maintained at Karnataka Bank, Chitradurga. The complainant submitted that the material i.e.KRX PVC10Kg DMCOMBO which was suppose to be delivered by OP to Davanagere was delivered to Harihara. On perusal of the statement produced by complainant which was marked as Ex.A3 & A4 clearly shows the status of product to be delivered by OP. On 02.11.2019 the message sent by seller discloses that the delivery partner was unable to deliver to your location has been returned. Refund accepted. Shipment is cancelled by seller. Refund of Rs.679/- will be added to your original payment mode within 7 business days (bank holidays not included) after pickup is completed. This is the usual course adopted in online transaction. On 17.01.2020 OP filed application to direct the complainant to implead seller as a party and for the same complainant filed not pressed memo. Further in his objection to implead seller as OP. Complainant has admitted that, he has paid amount to OP and OP has repaid the amount by denying transaction between him and Headly Fitness. With this it is very clear that when he has accepted the amount on cancellation of order, complainant is not having morality to proceed by filing complaint against OP. This complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of OP.

 

10)   Further on perusal of written arguments, OP contended that “Flipkart Platform” is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediatary to facilitate sale transaction between independent third party sellers and independent end customers. OP provides online market place e-commerce entity as defined under C.P.Act-2019 and Consumer Protection (E-Commerce)Rules-2020. Complainant had himself provided insufficient address and as it is the money as already been refunded to the source account. It was found that the seller had thrice attempted delivery of product which could not be completed due to insufficient address details provided by the complainant himself and thus the seller was constrained to cancel the said order. The OP being merely an online intermediatary cannot be held liable for the alleged cancelation of the complainant’s order.

 

11)   On perusal of the pleadings and evidence, nowhere in the complaint or his evidence the complainant stated regarding amount of refund received by him from OP on cancelation of order except in his objections to IA filed by OP. With this it is presumed that he has suppressed the same. On 03.11.2019 complainant filed this complaint before this commission seeking prayer as prayed in complaint. Complainant while filing this case without making proper person or designation in respect of who is representing on behalf of the OP instead the complainant has sued against OPs directly.

 

12)   The material evidence placed by complainant to prove negligence and deficiency of service as against the OP is bald vague and speculative and accordingly we are inclined to come to straight conclusion that complainant who comes to commission seeking relief has failed to prove with believable material evidence that OPs are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of OP in claiming the amount as prayed in complaint and accordingly, the complaint is not sustainable.

Point No.2: In the result for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following

ORDER

        The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties.

 

(Dictated to stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 18^th June 2022)

 

 

 

 LADY MEMBER              MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

Msr

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:- Deepak Kumar G.T., S/o.Late Thimmareddy

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Printout of SMS received from Flipkart regarding confirmation of order dt.10.10.2019
02	Ex-A-2:-	Printout of SMS received regarding packing of goods
03	Ex-A-3:-	Printout of the information received regarding process of order by Flipkart
04	Ex.A-4:-	Printout of the information received expressing their inability to deliver the goods as undertaken & refund acceptance by Flipkart

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP :

NIL

 

Annexures perused submitted by OP along with version:

01	Annexure-1	Copy of press not issued by department
02	Annexure-2	Copy of terms of use for online web portal of OP

 

 

 

  LADY MEMBER              MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

Msr