Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/166/2020

Shubham Kansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Flipkart Internet Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Harsh Garg Adv.

04 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	166 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	06.03.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	04.08.2022

 

 

 

 

Shubham Kansal, aged about 19 years, son of Sh.Vinod Kumar, Resident of H.No.379, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh

             …..Complainant

Versus

M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru, 560103, Karnataka, India, through its Managing Director.

    ….. Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:  SMT.SURJEET KAUR     PRESIDING MEMBER

         SH.B.M.SHARMA                     MEMBER 

                                                        

 

 

Argued by :- Sh.Harsh Garg, Adv. for the complainant

            Sh.Atul Sharma, Adv. for the OP

 

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant had ordered a ‘Fossil FS4487 Analog Watch – For Men’ from OP’s Online e-commerce web-portal on 6.2.2020 and received it on 10.2.2020 on making payment of Rs.9495/- inclusive of taxes (Ann.C-1). It is averred that after receipt, the complainant did not like the said Watch as its quality was not appropriate; so on the same day i.e. 10.2.2020, he tried to return it through OP’s Online Application within 30 days return policy of OP.  It is stated that the complainant was shocked to know that his account has been blocked by OP due to the reasons best known to them. As a result, the complainant was unable to return the watch.   The complainant also sent legal notice to OP on 172.2020 in this regard, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The Opposite Party in its written statement, has pleaded that the role/involvement of OP is only as an intermediary who provides a marketplace to the sellers & buyers of product to facilitate the transactions electronic commerce for various goods by and between the respective buyers and sellers and enables them to deal in various categories of goods.  It is stated that OP does not directly or indirectly sells any product on flipkart platform and rather all the products on flipkart platform are sold by third party sellers who avail of the online market place services provided by it, on terms decided by the respective sellers only.  It is also stated that the complainant has not paid the consideration to the OP but to the independent seller.  It is submitted that 30 days return policy is provided by independent sellers and not the OP and further, the return policy itself is subject to terms & conditions and cannot be simply availed for malafide reasons.  It is pleaded that the OP conducted an internal investigation, according to which it revealed that complainant was a suspected fraud and has a long return history of many products at many times and obtained refund or return on falsified grounds, thus, his account was blacklisted for any further transaction.  It is asserted that OP is merely an intermediary and is not liable to pay anything to the complainant as the OP is neither a seller nor the logistic service provider or the manufacturer of the product. Denying all other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed qua OP. 

 

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OP made in its reply.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record including written arguments.

 

6]       Considering all the documents on record as well as evidence of the parties, we are of the opinion that the Flipkart/OP is providing platform for selling products with clear terms & conditions as long as a person is returning the purchased goods; in the instant case ‘Watch’, as per OP Company’s Return Policy.  The claim of complainant for return of purchased goods and request for refund of cost thereof cannot be rejected by the OP Company merely on the basis of presumption that he had been returning things frequently in the past.  When Flipkart-OP is providing platform permitting the purchase of items, but blocking the account when a person wants to return the purchased goods that too within the time frame, clearly amounts to mal-practices, violation of rights of consumers and violation of declared terms & conditions of OP Company.  The OP Company cannot escape from their liability by taking untenable pleas and causing loss to the consumer/complainant for no fault.  Therefore the said act & conduct of the OP Company amounts to gross deficiency in service as well as its indulgence into unfair trade practice, which certainly caused loss and harassment to the complainant. 

 

7]       Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service as well as indulgence into unfair trade practice has been proved on the part of Opposite Party. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the Opposite Party with direction to refund the cost of Watch in question i.e. Rs.9495/- so paid by the complainant and also to pay him compensation amount of Rs.7000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. 

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional compensation cost of Rs.7000/- apart from above relief.  The complainant shall also return the ‘Watch’ so received by him to the OP on receipt of above decreetal amount. 

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. 

Announced                                                     

4^th August, 2022                              

                                                                                Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (B. M. SHARMA)

MEMBER