Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/112

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet Private limited - Opp.Party(s)

In person

18 Dec 2019

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. 112 of 22.08.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    18.12.2019

 

 

Gurpreet Singh son of Sh. Didar Singh, resident of Village Attalgarh, P.O. Singh Bhagwantpur, Tehsil & District Rupnagar  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Building Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devearabesanahalli Village, Bengaluru, 560103, Karnataka, India   

           ....Opposite Party

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Gurpreet Singh, complainant in person 

Sh. Jaspreet Singh Gill, Advocate, counsel for O.P.

 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1. Gurpreet Singh son of Sh. Didar Singh, resident of Village Attalgarh, P.O. Singh Bhagwantpur, Tehsil & District Rupnagar    has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment. 
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the O.P. had launched exchange scheme for purchasing new mobile phones. On 18.2.2019, the complainant had placed an order to Flipkart company to purchase the new Moto E5 Plus (fine Gold 32 GB) mobile phone vide order number OD1147735633917634000 and as per the exchange scheme, the complainant had exchanged his old mobile phone make Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 and the O.P. fixed the rate of said old mobile phone of the complainant as Rs.3950/- and after deduction of the said amount, Rs.4466/- was payable by him to the O.P. company as full and final payment of the new mobile phone. As per the instructions of the O.P. the complainant had paid Rs.4466/- to the O.P. through credit card, the O.Ps. had assured him that they would deliver the new mobile phone on his address upto 25.2.2019. The company sent on email on 26.2.2019 and said that your order was delay for some reason and also assured that your order would be delivered as soon as possible in a few days. He was sent a message to the O.P. on website portal. After next day of this message, the O.P. employee said that upon his phone that if you would get Moto E5 Plus (Fine Gold, 32 GB) then firstly your order would be cancelled whose Number was OD1147735633917634000. After repeated requests/message, the O.P. failed to supply the order placed by the complainant. Hence, this complaint. 
3. On notice, O.P. appeared through counsel and filed a written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has approached this Hon'ble Forum with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing material facts and as such is abuse of process of law; that the present complaint is vague, wrong and evasive and hence, denied in totality. On merits, the answering O.P. denied all the allegations leveled by the complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for the dismissal thereof. 
4.   On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered duly sworn his affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. suffered a statement to the effect that he has closed evidence on behalf of O.P. 
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
6. Complainant Gurpreet Singh, made prayer that on 18.2.2019, he placed an order to Flipkart Company for the purchase of Fine Gold (32 GB) mobile set with exchange offer (Old Phone). Flipkart assessed the price of his old mobile Rs.3950/- and after deduction of the said amount. He was to pay Rs.4466/- to the O.P. company. Complainant deposited Rs.4466/- but O.P. did not supply the delivery till 25.2.2019. On 26.2.2019, O.P. sent email that your order was delayed and place the fresh order. Sh. Gurpreet Singh in the light of documentary evidence as well as pleadings prayed that deficiency on the part of O.P. stands proved, complaint be allowed with costs and relief be granted as claimed.
7. Sh. Jaspreet Singh Gill, counsel for O.P. argued that no doubt the complainant placed the order to Flipkart for the purchase of the mobile set and the price of the old mobile set was assessed Rs.3950/- but that deal could not be matured as complainant did not dispatch his old mobile set when old mobile set was not received by the O.P. then there was no obligation to supply the new one. More so, the complainant paid Rs.4466/- that stands returned which is admitted by the complainant. When amount deposited has been returned to the complainant and old phone is in his hand then no deficiency is made out. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. 
8. Complainant is resident of District Rupnagar whereas (Flipkart) is situated in Bengaluru (Karnataka) but O.P. contested the complaint and this complaint is of August 2019. So, this forum has the jurisdiction and the complaint is maintainable.
9. Coming to the deficiency part whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.P. or not?. The onus lies upon the complainant. Complainant admitted that O.P. assessed the price of old mobile phone of Rs.3950/- but till today, the said old mobile is in the hand of the complainant as he did not dispatch it to the O.P. Moreso, the balance amount of Rs.4466/- was remitted in the account of O.P. through the family member of complainant and that amount has not been denied by the complainant when old mobile is in hand of complainant relevant amount of Rs.4466/- is in hand of complainant then no deficiency is made out.
10.  Complainant at the time of arguments made prayer that O.P. be directed to refund Rs.1000/- as he deposited with the O.P. in the very beginning. This forum gone through the complaint and there is no bill qua the deposit of Rs.1000/-. Further no relief has been sought in the prayer. When the complainant did not make the prayer for the relevant phone, forum can't grant any relief which is not claimed by the complainant.
11.  In the light of discussions made above, the complaint stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

12. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.18.12.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER