IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/23/2022.

 Date of Filing:                 Date of Admission:        Date of Disposal:

   25.03.22                                 07.04.22                              06.03.24

Complainant: Shelly Dutta

                        Punarnaba Abasan Flat No. 1G

                        71/1, Ukilabad Road,

                        PO&PS-Berhampore,

                        Pin-742101

                        Dist-Murshidabad

-Vs-

Opposite Party:  1. Senior Manager, Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd

    Building Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech,

    Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village,

    Bengaluru-560103

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant             : Prasanta Kr. Singha

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party                     : Amritendu Narayan Roy

Present:    Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.   

         Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.

This is a complaint under section 35 of the CP Act, 2019.

            One Shelly Dutta (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Senior Manager, Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-

             The Complainant is a loyal customer for the OP concern.

            The Complainant on 28.11.21 placed an order at the OPs concern for an amount of Rs. 20,499/- vide order No. 223497816661079000 and it would be pertinent to add here that the product i.e. NilkamalCrysta 4 Wardrobe was delivered on 15.12.21.

            The Complainant stated that it would be pertinent to add here that according to the technician who came for the installation of the aforesaid product, it was of a larger size than the floor area and therefore the Complainant contacted the OPs concerned customer care for a replace and the Complainant waited for the same but till date the product is not replaced and the OP did not refund the purchased amount.

            The Complainant stated that the Complainant has not been getting good response from the OPs end regarding the unjustified, unacceptable and unreasonable delay in providing the same from the OPs end. The Complainant has requested the OP concern several times for providing the said service but unfortunately, the Complainant has got ‘’No Support’’ from the OPs side to resolve this issue which is utterly unprofessional from the OPs end. The Complainant intimated the OPs concern on several occasions in respect of the said service.

            The Complainant stated that being deprived of the proper and facilitated procurement he again and again intimated the OP by way of the telephonic conversation and by way of electronic mail conversation in order to solve the said issue but in vein.

            Under such circumstances, the Complainant was compelled to file the instant case with the prayer for an order directing the OP to look into this matter with foremost importance to take necessary steps to render the proper service to the Complainant and refund the purchased amount of Rs. 20,499/- to the Complainant which is already paid to the OP company. The Complainant further prayed to direct the OP to provide Rs. 5,000/- as a compensation to the Complainant for deficiency in service and mental harassment and agony and to pay the litigation cost.

            The OP contesting the case by filing written version inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The OP specifically states in para 9 and 10 to the effect that on 23.12.21 the Complainant contacted the OP through its customer care executive and raised an issue stating that the Complainant wants to return the above mentioned product as she needed a smaller size of the product.

The OP politely denied the request of the Complainant as per the policy.

On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper  adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reason:

Point Nos. 1,2&3

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

            Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer to the OP. On this point Ld. Adv. for the OP raises no objection. However we peruse the materials on record. Keeping in mind the submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer to the OP.

            Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that it is admitted position that on 23.12.21 the Complainant contacted the OP through its customer care executive and raised an issue stating that the Complainant wants to return the above mentioned product as she needed a smaller size of the product.

            Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the OP politely denied the request of the Complainant as per the policy. He adds that wardrobe in question was delivered on 15.12.21. But the Complainant contacted the OP through its customer care executive on 23.12.21 which is beyond 7 days from the date of delivery.

            Ld. Adv. for the Complainant files return policy wherein we find that the limitation period is 10 days for refund or replacement of the article in question.

            Keeping in mind the submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the OP may be directed to replace the wardrobe in question or to refund the purchased money along with the interest @ 9% PA.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 25.03.22and admitted on 07.04.22. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case is allowed.    

     Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                                           Ordered

that the complaint case No. CC/23/2022 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

        The OP is directed to replace the wardrobe in question of the Complainant or to refund the purchased money along with the interest @ 9% PA to the Complainant and the Complainant will refund the wardrobe in question to the OP and the said order must be complied by the parties within 60 days from the date of this order.

        Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

President

Member                                                                                     President.