1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that being allured with massive advertisement through electronic media, on January, 2022, he placed an order for purchase of Realme Smart Watch with O.P. No.1 which was delivered to him on 04.01.2022 vide order no. OD223814510047083000 for Rs. 4,999/-.   It is alleged that after receive the same, he found some defects in the alleged product and in the month of February, 2022 he contacted with the O.Ps and as per their advise, he returned the alleged product to the O.Ps which was also acknowledged by them with an assurance of refund the costs of product, but since not refunded inspite of his best efforts, complainant filed this case with a prayer for refund of costs of alleged product alongwith Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.

2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 appeared and filed their counter version admitting the delivery of alleged product through them to the complainant but denied the allegations contending that they are only the intermediary between the buyer and seller to sale the product of seller through their Flipkart platform and the alleged product had not been sold by them but by an independent seller and citing the verdicts of different Courts and with other contentions, showing their no liabilities, they prayed to dismiss the case.  

3. The notice sent to O.P. No. 2 has returned back with a postal remark as “insufficient address”.  We think, the O.P. No. 2 is only the source through which the O.P. No.1 deliver their products to customers, hence impleading the O.P. No. 2 as a party in the present dispute, is not necessary.

4. Complainant has filed curtained documents whereas the O.P. No.1 did not choose to file any document.  Heard from the parties present.  Perused the case record and materials available therein.

5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant placed order for purchase of alleged product to the O.P. No.1 being allured with their massive advertisement and it is also admitted fact that the alleged product was delivered to the complainant by the O.P. No.1 after due consideration. The allegation of complainant is that after finding some defects in the alleged product, he contacted with the O.P. No.1 for its refund.  Complainant filed document to that effect showing that several correspondences were made between complainant and the O.P. No.1.  It is also evidentiary fact that finding no result, complainant made complaint on Consumer Grievance Cell, which is not disputed one and complainant also filed document to that effect.It is also not disputed that as per advise of O.P. No.1, complainant returned the alleged product to the O.P. No. 1 within due period, which is also evident from the correspondences made between the parties.From the above documents, it is clearly revealed that the only to get his amount, complainant entirely followed the rules and norms of the O.P. No. 1.

From the correspondences made between the parties and bank statement filed by the complainant, it is evident that the cost of product has not been remitted to the account of complainant as on 25.02.2022, which was assured by the O.P. No. 1 as per their correspondence dated 08.03.2022.Further it is seen from the record that finding no result complainant also made complaint in the Consumer Grievance Cell which was registered as Grievance Number 3336865.Though the Consumer Grievance Cell also made several correspondences with the O.P. No.1, but to no result.It is also seen from the correspondences made between the said Grievance Cell and O.P. No.1, that the O.P. No.1 only has lingered the matter without taking any fruitful step towards resolution of the dispute, whereas the complainant is their bonafide customer, but till date the dispute between the parties still pending.

Considering the above observation, we feel, that the complainant being allured the massive advertisement of the O.P. No. 1 placed the order for purchase of alleged product with due consideration.Only after going through such advertisement, complainant placed such order, or otherwise, complainant would not prefer the product.It is seen from the documents that costs of alleged product was paid to the O.P. No. 1 and complainant received the product from the O.P. No. 1 but not from the concerned company.Hence in our view, may the O.P. No. 1 be an intermediary, but he is the immediate seller of the product.It is also evident from the documents that each and every transaction were made between complainant and O.P. No. 1 but not with the concerned company.Hence it is first and foremost duty of O.P. No. 1 to resolve the dispute with due consultation with the concerned company and the O.P. No. 1 getting benefits out of sale of the alleged product to the complainant.But without extending their cooperation, the O.P. No. 1 tried to push their own burden on both the complainant and the concerned company, which is not permissible as per law. It was the duty on the part of the O.P. No. 1 to collect the cost of alleged product from the concerned company and refund the same to the complainant, since there is no direct relationship between the complainant and the concerned company.Hence in our view non refunding of the cost of alleged product by the O.P. No. 1 is clearly an act of deficiency in service.

Further it is observed that only to get his amount, complainant tried hard to his level best, but failed, which must have caused mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, which also compelled the complainant to seek redress before us.Hence this order.

                                                                                                  ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No. 1 being the immediate seller of the alleged product, is herewith directed to refund the costs of alleged watch of Rs. 4,999/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for causing mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the costs of alleged product shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 04.01.2022 till payment.  Further O.P. No. 1 is at liberty to recover the amount paid by them from the concerned company.  

        Pronounced the order in the open Commission on this the 22^nd day of August, 2022.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.