West Bengal

Bankura

CC/49/2023

Sri Rakesh Banerjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager, Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd (Flipkart) - Opp.Party(s)

Kunal Kanti Ghosh

11 Oct 2023

ORDER

   IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 49/2023

             Date of Filing: 05.06.2023

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                              Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.                                    

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Kunal Kanti Ghosh

For the O.P. : Ld. Advocate Sayontan Chowdhury

Complainant 

Sri Rakesh Banerjee, S/O- Sri Kalidas Banerjee, R/O- Babupara, Sonamukhi, Adi Maito Kalitala, P.O. & P.S.- Sonamukhi, District- Bankura,  PIN-722 207, Mob No.- 9434154969                                                                                        

Opposite Party

General Manager, Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd (Flipkart), Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove, Embassy Tech Village, Bengalauru-560103

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT       

                                                                                                                                                    

Order No.06

Dated:11-10-2023

Both parties file hazira through advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder:-

The Complainant’s case is that he booked one Luminous zolt 1100 pure sine wave Inverter with RC 25000 Tubuler Inverter battery on 23/05/2023 through O.P. / Flipkart India Ltd. and the product price of Rs.25,000/- was paid in favour of the O.P. on the same date through the SBI Credit Card in the name of the Complainant. After full payment of the aforesaid product the Complainant on tracking the relevant website found that the same has been delivered on 27/05/2023 at the place of delivery at Sonamukhi, Bankura where his parents stayed but on query from his parents the Complainant could ascertain that the product was not delivered on that date but it was delivered only after two days on 29/05/2023. When the matter of late delivery was brought to the notice of the O.P. Authority they sent a regret message. The parents of the Complainat were eagerly waiting for timely delivery of the Inverter in their native place. The Complainant had to rush from his place of work at Durgapur to his native place Sonamukhi to see the delivery of the said item but he was frustrated as it was not delivered on that date. Due to such late delivery of the Inverter on 29/05/2023 the parents of the Complainant had also suffered due to scorching heat wave and frequent problem of load shedding.  The Complainat has therefore approached this Commission for compensation of Rs.5 Lakh with litigation cost.

                                                                                                                                                                                  Contd……p/2

                                                                                                          Page: 2

The O.P. contested the case by filing a written version taking mainly a plea on law point stating that they being the intermediary on such online transaction connecting the buyer and seller have no liability for late delivery of the product as it was delivered by a 3^rd party seller i.e. M/s “Bookmybattery” and as such the instant case is not maintainable against them and the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from them.

-: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents on both sides the Commission finds that admittedly the product was booked on online through the O.P./Company and payment was made to the O.P. / Company but the product has been delivered by a 3^rd party seller as referred to above not on the appointed date but two days later and all the messages regarding the transaction was received by the Complainant from O.P./Company. Now the question is whether O.P./Company is exempted from liability under the law for such late delivery of the product causing hardship and inconvenience to the Complainant and his family.

Written version filed on behalf of the O.P./Company has given the details of provision of law regarding exemption from liability of the O.P./Company but on perusal of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 no such exemption from liability has been extended to the O.P./Company.

Section 2(37) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines product seller in relation to a product means a person who in the course of business imports, sells, distributes, leases, installs, prepares, packages, labels, repairs, maintains or is otherwise involved in placing such product for commercial purpose. (Underline is given by this Commission for the purpose of emphasis).

It is therefore clear from the definition of product seller that the O.P./Company who entertains the online transaction from the Complainant for sale and delivery of the product is no doubt otherwise involved in placing such product for commercial purpose and as such the O.P./Company is product seller within the definition of product seller under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and they cannot therefore get any protection of law. This apart, even if the O.P./Company is considered as an E-commerce entity within the definition of 3(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 still they cannot get the exemption from liability as in view of Section 6 (4) (a) of the said Rule as the seller offering goods or services through a market place E-commerce entity shall have a prior written contract with the respective E-Commerce entity in order to undertake or solicit such sell or offer.

                                                                                                                                                                                       Contd……p/3

                                                                                                    Page: 3

The explanation for late delivery as given by the O.P./Company shifting their liability upon the 3^rd party product seller is not sustainable in law and also in the given facts and circumstances of the case. The Complainant has no privity of contract with the product seller or the delivery agency as the sale transaction has been entered into only by and between the Complainant and the O.P./Company. On the contrary as stated above the O.P./Company has privity of contract with the said product seller M/s “Bookmybattery” to execute the online transaction.

In view of the clear provision of law as discussed above O.P./Company cannot avoid their liability for late delivery of the product to the Complainant and as such they have to cough up compensation for the same. However the Commission by awarding a token compensation of Rs.5,000/-  likes to give a message of warning and caution to the O.P./Company to avoid such unfair trade practice in future as service provider of transaction on online platform.  Be it mentioned here that in this case product seller “M/s Bookmybattery” is jointly and severally liable with the O.P. Company / Intermediary / E-commerce entity / Service Provider to pay the compensation to the Complainant but the said product seller has not been brought on record by the Complainant and as such O.P. /Company has to bear the compensation alone to pay to the Complainant.

Accordingly it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest in part but without cost.

O.P./ Flipkart Company is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.5,000/- as a token compensation within one month from this date in default law will take its own course.

Both parties be supplied copy of this order free of cost.

 

 ____________________                _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT            HON’BLE MEMBER