Complainant Harpreet Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,720/- as costs of LED TV and Rs.1,25,000/- as damages and mental harassment due to negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses and travelling expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he booked one VU 43 inches LED TV on 12.1.2018 vide order no.OD111259259876603000 with the opposite parties online and thereafter he got the delivery of Box on 18.1.2018 via Gati Courier and payment of Rs.25,720/- paid to the Courier boy by him. On 19.1.2018, he received SMS from Jeeves that their Engineer Jagjit Singh Mob.9463972958 will come and will install his LED. On the same day at 5.00 PM, the Engineer came and opened the Box in his presence and both of them shocked when they saw Wooden Board instead of LED TV in the box. Thereafter the Engineer intimated the said facts to his seniors in Jeeves and he also informed the opposite party no.1 in this regard. They assured him that they will settle the matter upto 23rd January 2018 but the matter was not solved and they extended the time for twelve days  but till today the matter was not solved and he was kept in dark. He continued making Mobile calls to the opposite parties on its Toll Free No.18002089898 but all in vain. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, this complaint.

3.         Notice issued to the opposite parties through R.C. and opposite party no.1 appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum with unclean hands and is guilty of suppressing material facts and as such is making abuse of process of law and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs alongwith other certain objections. On merits, it was submitted that the delivery of the product was done by Gati Courier Company and further the engineer from Jeeves Company came for the installation, the complainant had not impleaded both the parties in the present complaint, whereas they are necessary party to ascertain that the product was not delivered to the complainant. On the other hand, it can be seen that opposite party has nothing to do with the delivery of the product. It is only the seller who has to deliver the product. Although being an intermediary the opposite party duly informed regarding complaint made by the complainant to the seller who informed upon internal investigation that the product in question was delivered to the complainant. Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with cost.

4.       Opposite party no.2 appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complainant has suppressed the true and material facts and has not approached the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and is trying to mislead the Hon’ble Forum by presenting a concocted story, hence, the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground.  It was further stated that the opposite party is carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by others. The opposite party is a registered reseller on the website “Flipkart. Com” and sells products of other manufacturers, traders etc. under their respective Trade Marks through the website. The opposite party has acquired good market reputation for its range of products offered and for its exceptional customer support. The opposite party has taken other certain preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that complainant himself has mentioned about one engineer who visited his place to installation but the engineer has not been impleaded as party to prove the same. Further Jeeves Company was necessary party to be impleaded as a party without that company the controversy cannot be solved. Therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was next submitted that  the opposite party received the information regarding missing of the product through intermediary company and a thorough investigation was conducted by the company and it came out in the investigation that the product in question was duly delivered to the complainant. Therefore, the matter was closed and it was duly informed to the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

5.       Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1 and of Jagjit Singh Ex.C-17 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-16 and document Ex.C-18 alongwith photographs Ex.C-3 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.

6.    On the other hand, ld.counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr.Satyajeet Bhattacharya Ex.OP-1/A and affidavit of Miss.Sneha Kumari Ex.OP-2/A and closed the evidence.   

7.       On carefully going through the pleadings and arguments put forth by both the counsels and considering the documents attached on file, the case that is made out is that the complainant booked one VU 43 inches LED TV on 12.1.2018 vide order no.OD111259259876603000 with the opposite parties online and thereafter the complainant got the delivery of Box on 18.1.2018 via Gati Courier and payment of Rs.25,720/- paid to the courier boy by the complainant. On 19.1.2018 the complainant received SMS from Jeeves that their engineer Jagjit Singh Mobile No.9463972958 will come and will install the LED of the complainant. On the same day, at 5.00 P.M. the Engineer came and opened the Box in the presence of complainant and both of them were shocked when they saw wooden Board instead of LED TV in the Box. Thereafter the Engineer  intimated the said facts to his seniors in Jeeves and complainant also informed opposite party no.1 in this regard and opposite party no.1 assured the complainant that they will settle the matter upto 23 Jan. 2018 but the same was not solved and the opposite parties extended the time for twelve days from 23.1.2018 but till today the matter is not solved and even after repeated calls being made to the opposite parties on their toll free no. opposite parties are delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and aggrieved by deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant has felt harassed and hence this complaint. 8.         On the other hand both the opposite parties have categorically rebutted the allegations made by complainant by taking preliminary objection as well as on merits taking plea that opposite party no.1 is only a platform to display goods, and is only an intermediary.

9.         The document Ex.C12 proves that Jeeves had a tie-up with Flipkart as is evident from the mail dated 20.2.2018. In this mail it is clearly written that LED will be installed and Demo will be conducted by “Jeeves consumer services Pvt. Ltd.” and Flipkart has arranged this installation and Demo. From this document it is clearly proved that “Flipkart” i.e. opposite party no.1 itself   arranged the Demo and complainant has nothing to do with it and if the Engineer from Jeeves had come for installation and found that the LED Box is not containing the LED and instead there is a wooden platform in place of it, and he has given affidavit to this effect, so this evidence carries much weight in the eyes of law. The booking of order is proved vide Ex.C2 which is tax invoice by Flipkart. Ex.C-3 to Ex.C7 are the photographs showing the box delivered to complainant and No LED is lying in it. Ex.C-10 is also very important document. It proves that Flipkart has given extended warranty of the product and seller of this warranty is Jeeves which again clearly proves that Jeeves Consumer Service had a tie up with Flipkart i.e. opposite party no.1 and the complainant is not having any knowledge about that. In this way it is proved that the LED in dispute was ordered through Flipkart and installation was to be done by Jeeves Consumer Service. Again Ex.C13 proves that an extended warranty for two years by Flipkart Protect was provided to complainant and Jeeves gave this warranty for Rs.1725. But then again the question arises that who arranged this warranty? The answer is “Flipkart”. As the complainant had ordered the product through Flipkart and he does not know from whom the Flipkart is arranging this warranty. There is no privity of contract between complainant and Jeeves. The contract is within Flipkart and Jeeves and complainant has nothing to do with it. Admittedly opposite party no.1 has demanded some day’s time to solve the dispute regarding non-delivery of LED to complainant but afterwards they did nothing and complainant had to file the present complaint.

10.      We would like to discuss another plea of both the OPs, that after getting complaint from complainant regarding non-delivery of the LED TV in dispute, a thorough investigation was done and it was found that LED was duly delivered to complainant and the complainant was duly informed about this fact and the matter was closed. But if it was so, then OPs must have informed the complainant through some medium like, phone, SMS, E-mail or registered letter etc. But nowhere OPs have produced any document proving the intimation of the investigation to the complainant. In this way, this plea of the OPs having no force is rejected.

11.    From above all discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Flipkart has advertised the product of opposite party no.2 on its web Portal and after getting order from the company opposite party no.1 arranged the delivery of LED to complainant. The procedure to deliver the LED was taken by opposite party no.1 itself. And through whom they are delivering the LED was not known to complainant. In this way complainant has ordered the LED. From Flipkart and there is no privity of contract between complainant and seller of LED or complainant and courier service i.e. Gati Courier Company. And from this discussion, we hold that both the opposite parties are liable to make good the loss suffered by complainant jointly and severally as he has already paid the price of LED but has not received anything in response.  Though, complainant has prayed only for refund of entire amount spent by him on the purchase of LED, yet in the interest of justice we Order both the Ops jointly and severally to supply the complainant LED of the same model and make and if the same is not available then to refund the entire sale price of the LED i.e. Rs.25,720/- alongwith a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation Rs.2,000/-. Entire compliance be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which opposite parties will be liable to pay interest @ 9% P.A. on the entire awarded amount from the date of orders till its realization.

12.        Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

ANNOUNCED:                  (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

 June 24, 2019.                         Member                         Presiding Member

 MK