Delhi

StateCommission

CC/28/2017

M S RANDHAWA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

SELF

17 Mar 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                     Date of Arguments: 17.03.2017

     Date of Decision:     21.03.2017

 

Complaint No. 28/2017

In the matter of:

                                                            Versus

1.       M.S.Randhawa

          R/o E-222, Rashtrapati BCA

          Plot No. 3, Sector-10, Dwarka

          New Delhi-110077                                               ….Complainant

 

                                                          Vs.

 

1.       M/s Flipkart Internet Private Limited

          Vaishnavi Summit, No. 6/B,7^th Main

          80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangola

          Banglore-560034

 

2.       M/s Flipkart Internet Ltd.

          2^nd Floor, 2/16Ansari Road

          Daryaganj, New Delhi-2                                      Opposite Party

 

                                               

         

CORAM

 

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

SHRI O.P.GUPTA

                This is a strange case. On 02.10.2016 complainant purchased Mayor Strike Running Shoes from the OP on line for Rs. 449/-, Rs. 50/- were charged by the seller towards delivery.  He received assurance for delivery summary on 13.10.2016. In the meanwhile while searching the internet for other sellers,  he found that Online Shopping Store Amazon was selling the same product and had quoted MRP of Rs. 899/- with sale price of Rs. 499/-.  OP induced him to purchase product by highlighting hefty discount.  OP quoted MRP of Rs. 2999/-.  OP cheated him. Complainant has prayed for directing registration of FIR u/s 415 to 420 IPC and direct the OP to pay Rs. 50,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, hastle borne by him. 

2.        We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments on admission.  The complainant did not have to pay more than the price quoted by Amazon. Simply because OP allegedly quoted higher MRP it did not cause any loss to complainant.

3.        Directions to register FIR can be given by criminal court only.  Compensation sought by the complainant is highly imaginary and exaggerated.

In HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramu I(2017) CPJ 361 it was observed as below:-         “There is no law banning communication through e-mail for advertisement.  Harassment and mental agony for receiving the e-mails is not real and substantial because complainant was always at liberty to avoid such e-mails”.

4.        Similar analogy is applicable to online shopping. The complaint is dismissed in limini.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                             (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                             MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

      

 

sbm