SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

     This is a  complaint filed  by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite parties   to pay the value of mobile phone  Rs.21,900/-   to the complainant along with  compensation for mental agony stress and humiliation of the complainant  for Rs.25,000/-  and litigation cost  to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade  practice  on their part.

The case of the complainant in brief :

  The complainant  is  a  retired  Naval officer.  The complainant’s son placed an order by  order No. OD223277770095017000 with the OP for a  Samsung  Galaxy A 31(Prism crush white) touch screen mobile phone by paying full amount of Rs.21,900/- in advance on 3/11/2021.  The phone  was booked by  his son as a  gift for the  wedding anniversary of the complainant on 13/11/2021.  The complainant was expecting the phone to be delivered on 13/11/2021 the date of  wedding  anniversary, but only on 14/11/2021 the parcel packet was delivered to complainant’s house through a delivery boy Mr. Munas.P.K around 2.35 p.m .  Even though the  packet was delivered to the complainant with delay , he was  in joyous mood on receiving  the parcel from the delivery boy and when the packet was opened, the packet was containing 2 phones by name “Guru 1200” which is a normal handset(Key pad) phone which may not cost more than Rs.1000/- per phone in the market and  the complainant was really taken aback and felt cheated and humiliated .  Immediately the complainant communicated the OP through whats App regarding the wrong supply and requested for return of the  phone and repayment of the value of the phone.  For this request the OP agreed that they will take back the wrong delivery and will refund the amount within 2 days .  But the OP’s not turn up to collect the wrong delivery nor repay the amount of the phone.  But on 20/11/2021 the OP send a message stating that “our issue regarding the same item is resolved”.  But the matter is not solved at all.  The wrong delivered phones are still with the complainant.  The OP has not collected the wrong delivery product nor money refunded.  The OP’s are also cheated the complainant by non-refund  cost of the phone.  The act of the  OP’s the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s .  Hence the complaint.

     After filing the complaint notice issued to both opposite parties. Ops 1&2 received the notice.  1^st OP not  appeared  before the commission and not filed version .So 1^st OP’s name called absent and set exparte.  2^nd OP entered appearance before the commission and  filed his written version.  2^nd OP contended that Flipkart internet Pvt.Ltd is a company only act as an intermediary through web interface and provide a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products to the users of the flipkart platform.  Moreover OP’s contended that on 15^th November 2021 the complainant shared his ID proof to the OP.  That after the verification if the  ID proof provided by the  complainant  it was ascertained by the OP that the information available on the document of the  complainant was not sufficient for verification.  The complainant is not entitled to  any relief from the OP.   So there is no deficiency of service and  unfair trade practice  against this  2^nd OP and the complaint may be dismissed.

    On the  basis of the rival contentions by the  pleadings  the following issues  were framed for  consideration.

1 . Whether there is any deficiency  of service on the part of  the opposite parties .

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

3.  Relief and cost.

      The evidence on merit of the  oral testimony of PW 1 and Exts.A1 to A7(series) and Mos 1&2 marked.  From the  side of 2^nd OP no oral or documentary evidence  produced.

Issue  No.1:   

     The complainant adduced evidence  before the commission by  submitting   his  chief  affidavit  in lieu  of  his chief examination to the  tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying  the contentions in the version.  The complainant was   examined as PW1  and cross examined by 2^nd OP.  The documents Exts.A1 to A7 (series) and MOs 1&2 marked on his part to substantiate his case. According to the complainant the phone was ordered on  3/11/2021 by complainant’s son with order No.OD22327770095017000 with the OP for a  Samsung  Galaxy A31(prism crush white) touch screen mobile phone.  In Ext.A1 which clearly shows that the  complainant had paid Rs.21900/- to OP on 3/11/2021.  In Ext.A2 is the detailed ICICI bank statement showing the transfer of money to OP from complainant’s son Sruthin Parayil’s account.  In Ext.A3 is the test message to complainants mobile phone by OP dt.14/11/2021.  In Ext.A4 also the  screen shot of the message by OP regarding the  delivery of packet by the  delivery boy.  When the packet was opened it contains 2 phones by name “Guru 1200” which is a normal hand set(key pad) phone which may not cost more than Rs.1000/- per phone in the market and the  complainant was really taken aback and felt cheated and humiliated.  In Ext.A5 is the  short message communication from OP regarding the complainant’s complaint and they are acting on the complaint also.  In Ext.A6(series) is the  screen shot of the  product Samsung Galaxy A31(Prism crush white) being displayed by OP’s online. In Ext.A7 (series) also shows the e-mail communication between the complainant and OP in connection with  wrong delivery of the phone and the  OP blocked the complainant’s  message.  The complainant produced 2 mobile phone before the commission and marked as  MO1(2 in number).  The  box contains the address of the complainant and  booking details marked as MO2.  In the evidence of  PW1 he deposed that  “ഈ phone delivery  ആയി വന്നത് നിങ്ങളുടെ കയ്യിലേക്കല്ല എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാൽ? ശരിയല്ല. In re-examination complainant deposed that    നിങ്ങളുടെ ഇപ്പോൾ താമസ്സിക്കുന്ന address  ഏതാണ്? Angela, S.N.Park,Payyambalam,Kannur(PO).  MO2-വിൽ കാണിച്ച വിലാസം മേൽ വിലാസമാണ്.  ഞാൻ തിരഞ്ഞെടുത്ത phone Samsung Galaxi touch phone  ആണ്. ഏതു സാഹചര്യത്തിലാണ് മകൻ phone orderചെയ്തത് ?ഞങ്ങൾക്ക് anniversary gift ആയി മകൻ order ചെയ്തതാണ് .  It is clear that the complainant’s son placed an order with Flipkart order No. OD22327770095017000 with the OP for a  Samsung  Galaxy A31(prism crush white) touch screen mobile phone by paying  an amount  of Rs.21,900/-. But on 14/11/2021 the parcel box delivered to the complainant in his residence  as 2 phone  by name  “Guru 1200” which is a normal handset(Key pad) phone which may not cost more than Rs.1000/- per phone in the market. The complainant informed the matter to OP and  at that time the OP admitted to deliver the actual phone as booked and collect the wrongly delivered phone.  But the OP’s are not solve the  problem.  Except in the version  of 2^nd OP no evidence or documents produced by the OP’s to prove their defense. So we hold that the act of  OP’s  the complainant  caused much mental  agony and financial loss.  So there is  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP”s .  Hence the  Issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2&3:

   As discussed above ,the OP’s are not ready to deliver  the actual mobile phone as booked ie,  Samsung  Galaxy A31(prism crush white) touch screen  and not take back the phones wrongly delivered to the complainant ie  “Guru 1200” which is a normal handset(Key pad) phone  2 in number.  As per Exts.A1 to A7 (series) which clearly shows that  PW1 paid Rs.21900/- to OP’s  and they wrongly delivered  2 hand set phone  “Guru 1200” which may not cost more than Rs.1000/- per phone .  The complainant is cheated by the OP’s.  So the OPs are directly   bound  to redressal  the grievance caused to the complainant.  Therefore we hold that the  opposite parties 1&2  are jointly and severally  liable to refund the value of mobile phone Rs.21,900/- to the complainant along with Rs.8000/- as compensation for mental agony  of the complainant  and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost .  Thus the issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered.

               In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1&2  are jointly and severally  liable to refund the value of mobile phone Rs.21,900/- to the complainant along with Rs.8000/- as compensation for mental agony  of the complainant  and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost within  30 days of receipt  of this order.  In default the amount of Rs.21,900/- carries 12% interest  per annum  from the date of order till realization.  Failing which the   complainant is at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  After the said  proceedings the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the mobile phone before the commission.

Exts:

A1-  Copy of invoice

A2-Print out  bank account statement

A3 to A5- Screen shot print out

A6 SMS of products (3 in Nos)

A7 (series) Screen shot blocked message(6 in Nos)

MO1- mobile phone(2 in  Nos)

MO2- Cover  box.

PW1-Sadanandan Parayil-complainant

Sd/                                                                   Sd/                                                        Sd/ 

PRESIDENT                                               MEMBER                                          MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                 Molykutty Mathew.                            Sajeesh K.P

eva                                                  /Forwarded by Order/

                                                    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR