Haryana

Kaithal

123/21

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

(Oriental Bank Of Commerce)PNB - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.123/2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 27.04.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:18.07.2023.

Sunil Kumar, age 33 years, son of Sh. Sardar Singh, Ward No.10, Salempur Gamri, Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Punjab National Bank, Branch Cheeka through its Branch Manager.
2. Flipkart Breege Manage Court, Ist Floor No.111, Karmanagla, Industrial Layout, Banglore-560095, Karnatka (India) through its Branch Manager.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.   

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Adv. for the OP No.2.

               

ORDER

SUMAN RANA, MEMBER

        Sunil Kumar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that on 28.08.2020 the complainant had placed an order for purchasing of a mobile set bearing ID No.OD-1195546152279747000 through OP No.2 and made the payment through online.  On 01.09.2020 the complainant had got cancelled the said order and the deducted amount was credited in the account of complainant.  The case of complainant is that after two months, on 10.11.2020 the amount of Rs.100/-, Rs.100/0 and Rs.4399/- and total amount of Rs.4599/- was again got deducted by the OP No.1 from the account of complainant.  The complainant made several requests to the OPs to credit the said amount but the OPs did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.          Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission.  OPs contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  In the written version, OP No.1 raised the preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; cause of action; jurisdiction; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, it is stated that as per statement of account of complainant, transaction of an amount of Rs.4998/- was done by the complainant to use of merchant for purchasing of some items and accordingly, his account was debited on 28.08.2020.  In this way, transaction has been done by the complainant himself and there is no fault of OP No.1.  So far as cancellation of order is concerned, it is matter of record between complainant and the seller/merchant-OP No.2.  However, an amount of Rs.4998/- was has been credited through mercantile in the account of complainant on 28.06.2021 with same reference number.  The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.      

4.             OP No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that the answering OP provides online marketplace platform/technology; that the said ‘Flipkart Platform’ is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transaction between independent third party sellers and independent end customers.  The independent third party sellers use the Flipkart Platform to list, advertise and offer to sell their products to the users/buyer who visit the Flipkart Platform.  Once a buyer accepts the offer of sale of the products made by the third party seller on the Flipkart Platform, the seller is intimated electronically and is required to ensure that the products are made available and delivered in accordance to the delivery terms as per the terms for sale displayed by seller on the Flipkart Platform.  The answering OP does not directly or indirectly sell any products on flipkart platform.  In the instant complaint also, it can be evidenced that the actual seller of the product is a third party seller (who is not impleaded as a party).  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith document Annexure-R1, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure-R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             The complainant has argued that he had placed an order for purchasing of a mobile set bearing ID No.OD-1195546152279747000 through OP No.2 and made the payment through online.  On 01.09.2020 the complainant had got cancelled the said order and the deducted amount was credited in the account of complainant.  It is further argued that after two months, on 10.11.2020 the amount of Rs.100/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.4399/- and total amount of Rs.4599/- was again got deducted by the OP No.1 from the account of complainant.  The complainant made several requests to the OPs to credit the said amount but the OPs did not do so. 

9.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that as per statement of account of complainant, transaction of an amount of Rs.4998/- was done by the complainant to use of merchant for purchasing of some items and accordingly, his account was debited on 28.08.2020.  In this way, transaction has been done by the complainant himself and there is no fault of OP No.1.  So far as cancellation of order is concerned, it is matter of record between complainant and the seller/merchant-OP No.2.  However, an amount of Rs.4998/- was has been credited through mercantile in the account of complainant on 28.06.2021 with same reference number.  

10.            Ld. counsel for the Op No.2 has argued that OP No.2 provides online marketplace platform/technology.  It is further argued that the said ‘Flipkart Platform’ is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sale transaction between independent third party sellers and independent end customers.  The independent third party sellers use the Flipkart Platform to list, advertise and offer to sell their products to the users/buyer who visit the Flipkart Platform.  Once a buyer accepts the offer of sale of the products made by the third party seller on the Flipkart Platform, the seller is intimated electronically and is required to ensure that the products are made available and delivered in accordance to the delivery terms as per the terms for sale displayed by seller on the Flipkart Platform.  The OP No.2 does not directly or indirectly sell any products on flipkart platform.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2.

11.            It is an admitted fact that during the pendency of present complaint, the complainant has received the amount of Rs.4988/- on 28.06.2021 i.e. after a delay of seven months as per bank entry from the OPs, which is Mark-A on the file.  The complainant has prayed for compensation as he has been dragged by the OP No.2 into unwanted litigation and he has suffered harassment and mental agony.  In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Flipkart-OP No.2.   

12.            As a result of aforesaid discussion, we direct the Flipart-OP No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.3,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as litigation charges within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against OP No.2 and dismissed against OP No.1.      

13.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP No.2 shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:18.07.2023.  

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.