Haryana

StateCommission

A/1374/2017

FLIPKART INTERNET PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDERR SETIA AND ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT KUMAR

25 Apr 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    1374 of 2017

Date of Institution:  14.11.2017

Date of Decision:    25.04.2018

 

Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Ozone Money Tech Park, # 56/18 and 55/09, 7^th Floor, Garvebhavipalaya, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka, through its Managing Director/Director.

 

 

 

…..Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Inder Setia son of Shri Vasdev Setia, resident of House No.19C, Fruit Garden, NIT-5, Faridabad-121001.

 

…..Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      Vu Techonologies Private Limited, through its Director, Vu Center, 29, MIDC Central Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093.

 

…..Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.           

   

 

Present:     Shri Rohit Kumar, Advocate for appellant.

                   Shri Inderr Setia-respondent No.1/Complainant in person.

                   None for the respondent No.2.

                  

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          As per complainant he purchased LED brand TV from opposite party (in short ‘OP’) No.2 i.e. Vu Technologies Private Limited for Rs.38,990/- on 23.04.2015. It was promised to install TV on the same very day, but, same was installed after five days and he could not enjoy the stay with his family during this period because at that time he was serving in air force station, Bikaner. This amounted to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they be directed to pay compensation as prayed for.

2.      As OP No.2 was proceeded against ex parte, so, only OP No.1 i.e. Flipkart Internet Private Limited filed reply, wherein, it was alleged that no assurance was given as alleged by him. Even otherwise, he was not covered by the definition of consumer. There was no privity of contract in between them because he purchased TV from OP No.2.

3.      After hearing complainant and OP No.1, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 15.09.2017 and directed OP No.1 as under:-

“Rs.11,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment.

1. Rs.5500/- as litigation charges”

 

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OP No.1 has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments of learned counsel for appellant/OP No.1 and respondent No.1 heard because nobody appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service and that was also proceeded against ex parte before District Forum. File perused.

6.      It is no where alleged by the appellant/OP No.1 that OP No.2 did not sell it’s product. Any deficiency on the part of OP No.2 can also be attributed to OP No.1. However OP No.1 may recover the amount from OP No.2. Keeping in view all facts and circumstances, appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed.  

 

Announced 25.04.2018 D.R.

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member, Addl. Bench

(R.K. Bishnoi) Judicial Member, Addl. Bench