Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/176/2018

Ajay Mehra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Reebok India Company - Opp.Party(s)

Lakhbir Singh, Adv.

01 Nov 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	176 of 2018
Date of Institution	18.06.2018
Date of Decision	01.11.2018

Ajay Mehra s/o Sh.B.R.Mehra,Chamber No.211, District Court Complex, Sector 43, Chandigarh

                           …..Appellant/Complainant.

                           Versus

1.  M/s Reebok India Company, 7th Floor, Unitech Commercial Tower-2, Block B, Greenwood City, Sector 45, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 through its Manager/Representative.

2.     M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3rd Block Koramangala, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560034 through its Manager/Representative.

                           ....Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. B.S.Bajwa, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Manoj Lakhotia, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Rohit Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.  

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.04.2018, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.763 of 2017.

2.           The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a pair of shoes from Opposite Party No.2 in the sum of Rs.4885/- on 20.07.2016 vide invoice (Annexure C-1).     It was stated that at the time of its purchase, it was declared that the product could be returned within one month and the whole amount would be refunded. It was further stated that no such terms and conditions were communicated to the complainant by the representative of Opposite Party No.2 at the time of its purchase. It was further stated that the complainant requested Opposite Party No.2 to refund the shoes amount through delivery boy but the same was rejected. It was further stated that the pair of shoes was not of proper quality, therefore, he requested Opposite Party No.2 to refund its prices.  Opposite Party No.2  claimed that the amount was to be returned only after the receipt of the shoes.  Thereafter, the complainant returned the said shoes in good shape to Opposite Party No.2 vide receipt dated 08.08.2016(Annexure C-2) but despite repeated requests, the amount of the shoes was not transferred in his account. It was further stated that finding no alternative, the complainant placed another order for pair of shoes on 06.10.2016 in the sum of Rs.5159/-, for which, an additional amount of Rs.274/- was paid at the time of placing the order through debit card. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 delivered other pair of shoes on 17.10.2016 but due to its colour, the complainant was not happy with the pair of shoes, therefore, he tried to return the pair of shoes and to get the refund thereof but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

3.           Opposite Party No.1 (M/s Reebok India Company) in its written statement stated that it is only a manufacturer/importer of the shoes and sporting apparel under the brand name of “Reebok”. It was denied that the complainant has a grievance against the replying Opposite Party as it did not sell any product within the jurisdiction of the Fora.  It was further stated that the said transaction was carried out at the website of Opposite Party No.2 and the said transaction was not within its knowledge. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the replying Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                Opposite Party No.2 (M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.) in its written statement, stated that the replying Opposite Party acted only an intermediary through its web interface www.flipkart.com and provided a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their product(s) to the users of the flipkart platform.  It was further stated that the complainant did not raise any issue regarding the return of the product with the replying Opposite Party with regard to second purchase of shoes made by him vide invoice No.OD107262686405868000.  It was admitted by the replying Opposite Party that the complainant raised the issue with regard to earlier purchase order and refund of the amount was duly made to the complainant. It was further stated that until and unless the complainant would not raise any issue, how the replying Opposite Party would come to know about that. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the replying Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.           The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.           After hearing Counsel for the contesting parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

7.           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.           We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9.           Counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that respondent/Opposite Party No.2 has provided a link in the “app”, which can be opened in the mobile handset and in that app, Opposite Party No.2 placed a link against listing of every product purchased by the purchaser, wherein, the purchaser can click and place a request to replace the product. He further submitted that the complainant had chosen “click to replace” option in the app during the current as well as previous return of the product. He further prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

10.          On the other hand, Counsel for respondent No.1 & respondent No.2 submitted that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainant.

11.          After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

12.          The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. Annexure C-1 is a copy of retail/tax invoice/bill. From this document, it is proved that the complainant purchased reebok shoes in the sum of Rs.4885/-. Annexure C-2 is a copy of document, which shows that the complainant returned the pair of shoes in good condition to Opposite Party No.2. It is the admitted fact that the complainant purchased another pair of shoes by paying additional amount of Rs.274/- on 06.10.2016 (Annexure C-3).  At the time of arguments, Counsel for the appellant/complainant stated that Opposite Party No.2 (M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. ) provided a link in the “app”, which can be opened in the mobile handset and in that app, Opposite Party No.2 placed a link against listing of every product purchased by the purchaser, wherein, the purchaser can click and place a request to replace the product and, as such, he had chosen “click to replace” option in the app during the current as well as previous return of the product. Even Opposite Party No.2 in its written statement before the Forum clearly admitted regarding the earlier purchase order of shoes. However, Opposite Party No.2 further stated that until and unless the complainant would not raise any issue, how Opposite Party No.2 would come to know about that. It means that the complainant did not raise any issue with Opposite Party No.2. Even the appellant/complainant clearly mentioned in para D at page No.5 of the appeal that  “since the way to request was through the app of respondent/Opposite Party No.2, hence, the complainant was not able to maintain or retain any record of the complaint/reminders in the form of letters/emails.” So, it is crystal clear that the appellant/complainant admitted that he has failed to retain the record. It is apparent from the record that  the complainant received another pair of shoes on 06.10.2016 by paying additional amount of Rs.274/- and he filed the complaint before the Forum on 03.10.2017 i.e. approximately after a period of one year. Whether any correspondence regarding the shoes till the filing of the complaint before the Forum, was exchanged by the complainant with Opposite Party No.2 ? If that is so then the story would have been different. It is apparent from the record that the complainant has failed to place any document on record that he raised any issue with regard to second pair of shoes purchased vide order No.OD107262686405868000 dated 10.10.2016. The complainant himself was at fault because he kept mum for about a year and if he was not satisfied with the pair of shoes then immediately he should have approached the Opposite Parties by sending a letter/email to the concerned Opposite Party but it was not done. So, we are of the view that the Forum has rightly held in paras Nos.5 & 6 of the impugned order, which reads thus :-

“5.        After going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reasons recorded hereinafter.  A perusal of Annexure C-2 shows that the complainant returned the pair of shoes placed vide first order No. OD206588751374803000 in good condition to OP No.2. Moreover, it is case of the complainant himself that he had received another pair of the shoes by paying the additional amount of Rs.274/- on 06.10.2016(Annexure C-3).  However, he has not been able to place on record any documentary evidence in shape of any letter/e-mail to show that he had ever raised any issue with regard to another pair of shoes purchased vide second order No.OD107262686405868000 dated 10.10.2016 within 30 days of its receipt with OP No.2 and as such there was no occasion for OP No.2 either to replace or refund its price to him.

6.       Moreover, the complainant has filed present complaint before this Forum on 03.10.2017 i.e.  almost after one year from the date of the purchase of the shoes in question. It is not understood that if there was any problem in the pair of shoes as alleged, then as to why he waited for such a long period to lapse.  In this view of the matter, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against the OPs.”

 

Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

13.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.

14.          Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

1^st November, 2018.                                                

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        PRESIDING MEMBER

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

rb