Haryana

Karnal

CC/129/2023

Vijender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Saish Kumar

05 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No. 129 of 2023

                                                      Date of instt.21.02.2023

                                                      Date of Decision:05.02.2024

 

Vijender Kumar son of Shri Amar Nath, resident of house no.261 ward no.18 New Joyti Nagar, Karnal. Age 32 years (aadhar card no.309785848198) mobile no.9053317653.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Building Alyssa, Begonia and Clove, Embassy Tech village Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli village Bengaluru, PIN-560103.

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

               

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Suman Singh……Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Satish Kumar Dabra, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Pawandeep Kalyan, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:                     

          

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that the complainant had booked a Sony Car XM Car amplifier from OP vide order ID-OD126629955769223000 on 26.11.2022. The price of the said product was Rs.7871/-. The complainant had also ordered produced ID- OD126585985019501000 on 21.11.2022 of Rs.7871/-. The complainant had returned the said product, vide return ID-1210266T2865570026 dated 01.12.2022 and ID-12102668985432506256 dated 03.12.2022 as both the products were defected. The complainant made several complaints for refund of his money but OP always postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly OP had blocked complainant after the said issue. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the actual seller of the product is a third party i.e. Suri customer Pvt. Ltd. (who has not been impleaded as a party). The grievance of the complainant is with regard to the alleged defects in the product provided by the seller and manufactured by manufacturer (which is not impleaded as party) under the manufacturer’ warranty clause and not the answering OP. The Flipkart accepts no liability for any errors or omissions, whether on behalf of itself or third parties. The OP neither offers nor provides any assurance and/or offers warranty to the end buyers of the product.  Hence, the OP has wrongly arrayed as a party in the present complaint. It is further pleaded that the role of the OP is an intermediary only, that is, to provide an online platform to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its flipkart platform and the concerned contract(s) of sale and purchase is between the seller and the buyer only. Hence, the OP shall not be held liable for any liability owing to such contract. It is further pleaded that OP has no knowledge whether an original and intact product was delivered to the complainant or not, as the OP has no role in delivering the said product to the complainant and the third party seller is responsible for the delivery of the product.

3.             It is further pleaded that complainant approached the OP for the alleged issue as he has raised return request. According to the update received by the seller, the request was rejected by the seller on 02.12.2022, citing return rejected for breach of Rule 19 under the return policy of the seller and also as the product was delivered intact. On 05.12.2022 , complainant again contacted the OP for the alleged issue as he wanted to return the product, but the same was again cancelled by the seller stating the aforementioned reason. The return period of seller was closed. On 15.12.2022, complainant again contacted the OP with regard to return the products but the request of the complainant again rejected by the seller. Complainant again raised the return request, then on checking the account and the previous orders history of the complainant, it was discovered that the complainant is return abuser due to return threshold breach previously and thus the account of the complainant was blacklisted and consequently blocked.  The whole grievance of the complainant is only against the manufacturer and seller. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of order detail Ex.C1 and closed the evidence on 05.01.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP led no evidence and suffered a statement on 17.11.2023 to the effect that written statement filed by the OP be read as part and parcel of evidence on behalf of complainant.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant booked two orders one on 21.11.2022 for an amount of Rs.7871/- and second for a Sony Car XM Car amplifier on 26.11.2022 and the price of the said product was also Rs.7871/-. The complainant had returned the said products vide return ID dated 01.12.2022  and03.12.2022 as both the products were defected. The complainant made several complaints for refund of his money but OP did not return the same and lastly OP had blocked complainant without any reason and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the grievance of the complainant is with regard to the alleged defects in the product provided by the seller and manufactured by manufacturer, which is not impleaded as party. The role of the OP is an intermediary only, that is, to provide an online platform to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its flipkart platform and the concerned contract(s) of sale and purchase is between the seller and the buyer only. The whole grievance of the complainant is only against the manufacturer and seller. The liability of refund/replacement of the product is with the seller and not with the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.    

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           As per the version of the complainant, he has placed two orders vide order ID-OD126585985019501000 dated 21.11.2022 of Rs.7871/- and ID-OD126629955769223000 dated 26.11.2022 of Rs.7871/-.  The complainant had returned the said product, vide return ID-1210266T2865570026 dated 01.12.2022 and ID-12102668985432506256 dated 03.12.2022.  The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant. To prove his version, complainant has placed on file order details Ex.C1. On perusal of the said order details, it is clear that the produces have been received by the OP.

12.           The complainant purchased the products from OP and also return the products to the OP, thus, the OP cannot run away from his liability. Hence, the plea taken by the OP has no force. Thus, the act of OP for not-refunding the price of the products amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice               

13.           The complainant purchased the products for an amount of Rs.15742/- (Rs.7871+7871) hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses, etc.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.15742/- (Rs. fifteen thousand seven hundred forty two only) to the complainant.  We further direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:05.02.2024                                 

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Suman Singh)

                  Member                         Member