Orissa

Cuttak

CC/176/2022

Pravat Kumar Lenka - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Flipkart Internet - Opp.Party(s)

11 Sep 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C No.176/2022

 

          Pravat Kumar Lenka,

           S/o: Late Bholi Lenka,

           Residing at Vill:Chandi Prasad,PO:Brahmani Gaon,

           Via/P.S/Tahasil-Barang,Dist:Cuttack,

           Odisha,Pin-754005.                                          ... Complainant.

 

     Vrs.

 

 

1.       The Managing Director,

Flipkart Internet Private Limited,

Buildings Alyssa,Begonia 7 Clove Embassy,

Tech Vuillage,Outer Ring Road,

Devarabeesanahalli Village,

                   Bengaluru-560103,Karnataka,

                    India-044-45614700,

CIN U51109KA2012PTC066107.

 

2.       The Proprietor,SKYBRIGHT,

12692,St No.03,Gurmel Park,

Tibba Road,Ludhiana-141008,Punjab.                                  ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    05.09.2022

Date of Order:  11.09.2023

 

For the complainant       :          Self.

For the O.P No.1             :          Mr. S.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2             :           None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

          Case of the complainants as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased from the O.P no.2 twenty number of SKYBRIGHT,CFFSK54122 15W Spiral B22 CFL Bulb,(SKY28CF78) vide Order Id no.OD224922108464103000  dated 12.5.2022 for a sum of Rs.2503/- through Flipkart E-Commerce Website, against which an Invoice was issued vide No.:FAB6D82300000088 dated 15.5.2022. It was delivered to him on 22.5.2022 through the agent of O.P no.1.  The said purchased bulbs had warranty period of one year but quite strangely those bulbs without glowing started becoming fuse one after the other.  Thus, within 45 days of the purchase, all the bulbs were fused for which the complainant had tried to contact the O.Ps as because he purchased those bulbs for his personal use.  He had sent pleader’s notice to O.P no.1 on 17.7.2022 asking for refund or replace the said CFL bulbs but the said notice was returned unserved with endorsement of incorrect address.  The complainant had sent legal notice to O.P no.2 on 2.8.22 which also was returned back unserved with the same endorsement.  The complainant could know that the O.Ps had cheated him for which he had come up with this case seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the O.P no.1 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also has prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

          He has filed several copies of documents alongwith his complaint petition in order to establish his case.

2.       Out of the two O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not contested this case, the O.P no.2 has been set exparte  vide order dated 24.11.2022.

          However, O.P no.1 has contested this case and has filed his written version.  According to the written version of the O.P no.1, he has been wrongfully impleaded as a party in this case as because the entire allegation of the complainant is against the manufacturer who has the responsibility to provide after sale service.   According to him, the grievance of the complainant is for the delivery of defective bulbs which were neither manufactured nor sold by O.P no.1 to the complainant.  It is the responsibility of manufacturer to refund/replace and provide after sale service and not O.P no.1.  The O.P no.1 is only providing online platform through internet services thereby enabling the buyer and the seller online market place thereby providing e-commerce entity.  Thus, O.P no.1 is only intermediary and has no role to play as per the allegations made by the complainant in this case for which it has prayed by O.P no.1 through his written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant against him with exemplary cost and to pass any other order as deemed fit and proper.

          Together with the written version, O.P no.1 has annexed copy of the terms and conditions through which it operates.

          The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit in order to further his case but the contents of the said affidavit when perused, it is noticed that the same is only a reiteration of the averments as made in the complaint petition and nothing else.

          Similarly, the O.P no.1 has filed evidence affidavit through one Sanchi Chhabra but the contents of the said evidence affidavit when perused is also found to be a reiteration of the contents of the written version as filed by O.P no.1.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P no.1, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if the O.Ps have practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the contents of the complaint petition, that of the written version, the written notes of submissions as filed from either sides, the copies of documents as annexed herewith and also the evidence affidavits of both the sides, it is noticed that admittedly, the complainant had purchased for his own use 20 number of CFL bulbs from O.P no.2 through O.P no.1 for a consideration of Rs.2503/- which was delivered to him on 22.5.2022.  It is also not in dispute that those 20 number of CFL bulbs as purchased by the complainant from O.P no.2 got fused within a span of 45 days though there was a warranty period of one year upon each of those CFL bulbs.  In this context, the complainant had tried to ventilate his grievance to both the O.Ps and had sent legal notice to them but quite strangely  the notice had returned unserved with endorsement “left addressee”.  The same could be ascertained from the postal envelops as available in the case record being submitted by the complainant.

O.P no.1 undoubtedly is a service provider who provides online electronic platform enabling the seller and the buyer to have e-commerce facility.  As online service provider platform, O.P no.1 has certain duties and obligations which should not be overlooked.  The complainant/purchaser relying on the online platform of the O.P no.1 had indented for purchasing 20 number of CFL bulbs from O.P no.2 and had paid the consideration thereof to the tune of Rs.2503/-.  It is not in dispute that those CFL bulbs were delivered to the complainant through the agent of O.P no.1 on 22.5.2022.  It is also not in dispute that all of the said CFL bulbs those which were purchased by the complainant from O.P no.2 through O.P no.1 for a consideration of Rs.2503/- got fused within a span of 45 days from the date of purchase.  It is also not in dispute that each of the said 20 number of CFL bulbs had warranty period of one year.  It is the duty of the O.P no.1 being the online service provider besides ensuring genuinity of the product, to provide correct address of the manufacturer/seller to the purchaser when any dispute arises and not to return the legal notices when sent through postal services in that context.  Thus, quite clearly it is evident here in this case that the O.P no.1 is found to be negligent in his service.  Moreso, the product sold by O.P no.2 to the complainant through O.P no.1 when had got fused within a very short span, though it had one year warranty period, by remaining silent and not receiving the notices to that aspect from the complainant, the O.P no.2 is equally liable to be deficient in his service and both the O.Ps can also be said to have practised unfair trade as it is well evident from their conducts in this case.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the above discussions, it can undoubtedly be said here that the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and he is entitled to the reliefs ofcourse to a reasonable extent as claimed by him.  Both the two issues also go in favour of the complainant.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against O.P no.1 and exparte against O.P no.2.  Both the O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Both the O.Ps are thus directed to compensate the complainant by paying a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards the legal expenses as incurred by him due to the intentional omission of service on the part of both the O.Ps.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 11^th day of September,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                              President

 

                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                     Member