DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V,
: SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N.K, MEMBER.
DATE OF FILING:23.09.2023.
CC/248/2023
Krishnadas M, S/o. Saraswathy Amma, - Complainant
Anugraha, Kanniyampuram PO,
Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad District-679 104.
(By Adv. Sajitha Krishnadas)
Vs
1. M/s.Glide Route Ventures LLp, -Opposite Parties
Gala No.318 and 319, Ground Floor,
Mahesh Industrial Premises Co-op society Ltd,
Block Sector MIRA Road East, Thane District,
Mumba-401 107.
(Ex-parte)
2. Flipkart Internet Pvtl Ltd,
Buildings Alyssa,
Begonia and Clove Embassy Tech Village,
Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village,
Bengaluru-560 103, Karnataka, India.
(For OP2-R.P.Sreenivasan)
ORDER
BY SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.
1. The complainant ordered a Cimelle Cool Shaving Foam through the website of the 2nd opposite party on 31.07.2023 and paid Rs.126/- for the product. The product was delivered to him on 05.08.2023. But when he opened the cover, he found that the item delivered was Cimelle Non-Foamy Shaving Gel instead of the item ordered. On 08.08.2023, he intimated this to the opposite parties through Flipkart support and informed that the item is to be returned. But they replied that item cannot be returned as it falls under the “non-returns” category.
Eventhough the complainant specifically informed that the product delivered is a different one, they did not try to solve the problem.
On 11.08.2023, he sent mail to the grievance officer, Flipkart, but he again got the same reply.
The act of the opposite parties in displaying one item and prompting the customers to buy it and after receiving the price, delivering another item is an unlawful trade practice.
So, the complainant approached this Commission with the following prayers.
1. To direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.126/- the price of the product to him.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.7,500/- as the expenses for the litigation.
2. After admitting complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party appeared and filed version. The 1st opposite party did not appear or file version and they were set ex-parte.
3. The main contentions raised by the 2nd opposite party in their version is as follows:-
The Flipkart platform is an electronic market place which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and customers. The sellers are separate entities being controlled and managed by different stake holders.
The complainant never contacted the 2nd opposite party team to report any issue regarding this product. The 2nd opposite party is an unnecessary party to this complaint and the complainant has no cause of action against this opposite party.
The 2nd opposite party is not the seller of the product but mere an online intermediary. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed with this cost.
4. From the pleadings of parties, the following points were framed for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving that the item delivered to him was different from that he ordered?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the company is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Any other reliefs.
5. Complainant produced the MO and the Commission prepared mahazar and product was returned to him. Documentary evidence of complaint comprised of proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A6 documents. There was no objection in marking the documents 2nd opposite party’s evidence comprised of proof affidavit and Exts.B1 and B2 documents. Marking of Ext.B2 is objected as the document does not reflect its nature. Evidence was closed and the complainant filed notes of argument.
6. Point No.1
The complainant’s case is that he ordered a Cimelle Cool Shaving Foam 400 gm through the website of 2nd opposite party on 31.07.2023 and paid Rs.126/- for that. The product was delivered to him on 05.08.2023; but when opened, he found that the product delivered was different from that ordered.
In order to prove his case, he produced the delivered item before the Commission and a mahazar was prepared by the Commission.
In the mahazar, it is noted that “The bottle has a label containing information. Product is named Cindelle-Non-foam shaving gel-Regular-mfg date is 04/2023, Batch No. CSG.01; Net Vol: 500 ml; MRP is 199/- inclusive of taxes. Product is best before 36 months.”
7. From this, it is clear that the item delivered to the complainant is Cimelle-Non foam shaving gel. Ext.A2 shows the description and picture of the item ordered by the complainant. Its description shows the product to be CIMELLE SHAVING FOAM and the picture of the product also shows the label as Cimelle shaving Foam. From these exhibits, it is clear that the item ordered was shaving foam.
Hence, the complainant had succeeded in proving that the item delivered is different from that which was ordered. Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.
8. Points 2 to 4
The conclusion arrived at in point No.1 clearly shows that the complainant obtained a product which is different from that ordered by him. He intimated this to the opposite parties and asked for refund of the amount. Ext.A5 is the copy of the e-mail communication send by the complainant to the Grievance Officer, Flipkart. Ext.A6 is the reply from the 2nd opposite party asking the complainant to contact their support team. The complainant had stated that as per the instruction, he contacted the 2nd opposite party’s support team; but of no use.
9. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Eventhough the 2nd opposite party had contended that they only act as an intermediary and the transaction is between the seller and the customer, it cannot be accepted. The product is ordered through the website of the 2nd opposite party and the complainant’s grievance was addressed to their support team. So, the 2nd opposite party is also liable to compensate the complainant.
10. Further the 2nd opposite party had displayed the picture and description of one product in their website and delivered a different product. It is an unfair trade practice on their part. Hence the opposite parties are responsible for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
In the result, complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally.
1. To refund Rs.126/-, being the value of the product.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,500/- as cost of the litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this Order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof, from the date of the Order, till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of September, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
VIDYA A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Tax invoice of Cimelle Cool dated 31.07.2023.
Ext.A2: Product details and specification from Flipkart app.
Ext.A3: Delivery of wrong item instead of ordered.
Ext.A4: Delivery of Cimelle Cool, 400 gm dated 05.08.2024.
Ext.A5: Complaint regarding the delivered item is different.
Ext.A6: Reply from the Flipart on the complaint made by the complainant.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party:
Ext.B1: Certified copy of resolution of the 2nd opposite party.
Ext.B2: Terms and condition of the 2nd opposite party.
Document marked from the side of Court: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 2,500/-.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
