Haryana

StateCommission

A/204/2016

FLIPKART - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUSHPENDRA SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

VIVEK SETHI

16 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     204 of 2016

Date of Institution:    09.03.2016

Date of Decision :     16.05.2016

 

FLIPKART, 447/B, 1^st A Cross, 12^th Main, 4^th Block, Opposite BSNL Telephone Exchange, Koramangala, Bangalore, Karnataka-560034

                                      Appellant-opposite party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Pushpendra Sharma son of Sh. Ramakant Sharma, resident of House No.876, First Floor, Sector 17, Panchkula - 134108

Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      United Retail, Gala No.19,Quddus Compound, Opp. M.K. Industrial Estate, Jari Marg, Mumbai – 400072.

Respondent No.2-opposite party No.2

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                                                   

Present:              Shri Vivek Sethi, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

By filing the present appeal, Flipkart-opposite party No.1 has challenged the order dated January 13^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Pushpendra Sharma-complainant was allowed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.4549/-, that is, cost of Wireless Head Pro and Rs.5000/- compensation for mental agony and harassment.

2.      On July 04^th, 2015 complainant purchased Sony Ericsson MW-1 Smart Wireless Headset (for short, ‘headset’) from the appellant for Rs.4549/- vide bill (Annexure A-2).  After seven days, the complainant found some defects in the headset.  He was assured by the appellant that the headset would be replaced.  The appellant failed to replace the headset.

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant was only the intermediary.  There was no privity of contract between the complainant and appellant.  Appellant was not the manufacturer.

4.      This Commission does not concur with the submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellant.  The appellant has itself placed on record email trail (Annexures A-4 & A-5) vide which appellant arranged the replacement of defective headset and stated that the original item would be picked while delivering the replacement item.  The appellant further informed the complainant that the order No.OD1032879601339011 was packed and was ready to be shipped but the complainant did not receive headset.  Thus, the order passed by the District Forum was perfectly right and requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.  

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

16.05.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K