West Bengal

Murshidabad

CC/88/2021

Ankan Sarkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Senior Manager, Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Berhampore, Murshidabad.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/88/2021
( Date of Filing : 03 Nov 2021 )
 
1. Ankan Sarkar
S/o Pradip Sarkar, Vill-4 no Manindranagar, PO-Cossimbazar (Raj), PS-Berhampore, Pin-742102
Murshidabad
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Senior Manager, Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Building Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech, Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru-560103
Karnataka
Karnataka
2. Manager, Hi Life Retails
274A Model Town, Hisar, Hisar-125001, Haryana
Haryana
Haryana
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. AJAY KUMAR DAS PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. NITYANANDA ROY MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 01 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

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

CASE No.  CC/88/2021.

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

03.11.21                               22.11.2101.06.23

 

Complainant:Ankan Sarkar

S/O Pradip Sarkar, Vill-4 No Manindranagar,

PO-Cossimbazar (Raj), PS-Berhampore, Pin-742102

                       

-Vs-

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

    Building Alyssa, Begonia & Clove Embassy Tech,

Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village,

Bengaluru-560103

2.Manager, Hi Life Retails

274A Model Town, Hisar,

Hisar-125001, Haryana

                       

 

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Self.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1            :Amritendu Narayan Roy

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2             : None.

 

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

    Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

   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 Ankan Sarkar(here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Senior Manager, Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

 

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

            The Complainant ordered a tricycle with cost of Rs. 2,799/- on 21.07.21 at 5.32 pm from Flipkart App vide order id OD222372424689762000. The Complainant received the product on 26.07.21 around 5 pm and paid the amount of Rs. 2,799/-. The received product was different from the product ordered. The colour was completely different from the product ordered. The Complainant received the product of sky blue colour in lieu of purple. The product was completely different in look which was shown on the Flipkart application during order. The delivery boy did a video during the opening of the parcel. And it was clearly shown that the received product is different from the ordered product.

            The Complainant raised return request that day from his Flipkart account as the product was mentioned of 7 days return policy. The OP rejected the return request. The Complainant contacted the Flipkart help centre after getting rejection mail of the return request. The Complainant contacted the Flipkart help centre after getting rejection mail of the return request. The Complainant informed all the concerns about the product to the customer service provider clearly and as per his guidance requested to replace the product. The OP again rejected the request. Again the Complainant contacted with the Flipkart help center and discussed the problem. The customer service provider connected the call with his senior and again there was a clear discussion about the problem. The Senior Customer service provider generated a return request for that product and assured to give complete solution. But again there was a rejection from the side of the OP. Being tired of the repetition of the same thing, the Complainant again contacted the help center and told the customer service provider that they would go to Consumer Forum if no return or replacement be done. Again replacement request was raised and there was as usual assurance from their side that they would resolve the problem. Instead of giving a solution, they blocked the Complainants Flipkart account.

            The Complainants flipkart account had gift card valued Rs. 365/-. The Complainant again contacted the flipkart help center and filed a complaint on that issue. Flipkart did not unblock the account, showing the cause by mail that the account had high number of return records in the purchase history.

            Being helpless, the Complainant called National Consumer help line and filed a complaint against flipkart (complaint id 287807) for the cheating and mental harassment done by them. As per their suggestion a mail was sent to the mail id

            Under such circumstances, the Complainant was compelled to file the instant case with the prayer for an order directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs.2,799/- of the unwanted tricycle along with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment and for unblocking the flipkart account of the Complainant.

            Notices were issued upon both the OPs. OP No.2, Manager, Hi Life Retails did not file W/V and contested the case in spite of receiving notice. But OP No.1, Senior Manager, Flipkart Internet Private Limited has filed W/V and contested the case.

            OP No.1 has filed W/V stating inter alia that the Complainants case is not maintainable. This OP merely acts as an intermediary through its web interface www.flipkart.com and provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products to the users of the flipkart platform. This answering Op does not directly or indirectly sell any product on the flipkart platform. Rather, all the products on the flipkart platform are sold by third party sellers who avail of the online marketplace services provided by the OP upon terms decided by the respective sellers only. It is further submitted that, any kind of assurance, whether in terms of specifications, warranty on the products, delivery, price, discounts, promotional offers, after sale services, return and refund or otherwise, are offered and provided by the seller of the products sold on flipkart platform. The OP neither offers nor provides any assurance and/or offers pickup or refund facility to the end buyers of the product.

    

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. Is the 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. At the time of argument, the Complainant, Ankan Sarkar was present. Ld. Adv. for the OP No.1 was present. At the time of hearing of argument the Complainant submitted before this Commission that the Complainant ordered a tricycle with cost of Rs. 2,799/- on 21.07.21 at 5.32 pm from Flipkart App vide order id OD222372424689762000. The Complainant received the product on 26.07.21 around 5 pm and paid the amount of Rs. 2,799/-. The received product was different from the product ordered. The colour was completely different from the product ordered. The Complainant received the product of sky blue colour in lieu of purple. The product was completely different in look which was shown on the Flipkart application during order. The delivery boy did a video during the opening of the parcel. And it was clearly shown that the received product is different from the ordered product.

            The Complainant raised return request that day from his Flipkart account as the product was mentioned of 7 days return policy. The OP rejected the return request. The Complainant contacted the Flipkart help centre after getting rejection mail of the return request. The Complainant contacted the Flipkart help centre after getting rejection mail of the return request. The Complainant informed all the concerns about the product to the customer service provider clearly and as per his guidance requested to replace the product. The OP again rejected the request. Again the Complainant contacted with the Flipkart help center and discussed the problem. The customer service provider connected the call with his senior and again there was a clear discussion about the problem. The Senior Customer service provider generated a return request for that product and assured to give complete solution. But again there was a rejection from the side of the OP. Being tired of the repetition of the same thing, the Complainant again contacted the help center and told the customer service provider that they would go to Consumer Forum if no return or replacement be done. Again replacement request was raised and there was as usual assurance from their side that they would resolve the problem. Instead of giving a solution, they blocked the Complainants Flipkart account.

            The Complainants flipkart account had gift card valued Rs. 365/-. The Complainant contacted again the flipkart help center and filed a complaint on that issue. Flipkart did not unblock the account, showing the cause by mail that the account had high number of return records in the purchase history.

            Being helpless, the Complainant called National Consumer help line and filed a complaint against flipkart (complaint id 287807) for the cheating and mental harassment done by them. As per their suggestion a mail was sent to the mail id

            Under such circumstances, the Complainant was compelled to file the instant case with the prayer for an order directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs.2,799/- of the unwanted tricycle along with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment and for unblocking the flipkart account of the Complainant.

            Ld. Adv. for the OP No. 1 submitted before this District Commission that the Complainants case is not maintainable. This OP merely acts as an intermediary through its web interface www.flipkart.com and provides a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products to the users of the flipkart platform. This answering Op does not directly or indirectly sell any product on the flipkart platform. Rather, all the products on the flipkart platform are sold by third party sellers who avail of the online marketplace services provided by the OP upon terms decided by the respective sellers only. It is further submitted that, any kind of assurance, whether in terms of specifications, warranty on the products, delivery, price, discounts, promotional offers, after sale services, return and refund or otherwise, are offered and provided by the seller of the products sold on flipkart platform. The OP neither offers nor provides any assurance and/or offers pickup or refund facility to the end buyers of the product.

            After hearing both sides we peruse materials on record. The relevant provisions of law is required to be quotedhere :

            Rule 4(4) of the Consumer Protection E-commerce Rules, 2020: ‘’every e-commerce entity shall establish an adequate grievance redressal mechanism having regard to the number of grievances ordinarily received by such entity from India, and shall appoint a grievance officer for consumer grievance redressal, and shall display the name, contact details and designation of such officer on its platform.’’

            Rule 4(5) of the Consumer Protection E-commerce Rules, 2020:‘’ every e-commerce entity shall ensure that the grievance officer referred to in sub-rule (4) acknowledges the receipt of any consumer complaint within forty-eight hours and redresses the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint.’’

            Rule 5(2) of the Consumer Protection E-commerce Rules 2020: ‘’ every marketplace e-commerce entity shall require sellers through an undertaking to ensure that descriptions, images, and other content pertaining to goods or services on their platform is accurate and corresponds directly with the appearance, nature, quality, purpose and other general features of such good or service.’’

            Rule 6(4) of the Consumer Protection E-commerce Rules 2020: ‘’ any seller offering goods or services through a marketplace e-commerce entity shall:

  1. have a prior written contract with the respective e-commerce entity in order to undertake or solicit such sale or offer;
  2. appoint a grievance officer for consumer grievance redressal and ensure that the grievance officer acknowledges the receipt of any consumer complaint within forty-eight hours and redresses the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint;’’

 

In view of the above provisions of law, we find that there is tripartite contract between the seller, service provider (herein flipkart) and the consumer. The seller and service provider are jointly and severally liable for any defect, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the service provided or good/product sold by them.

In the instant case facts of the Complainant is not challenged by the OP No.2. The only defence of OP No.1 is that they are not liable for any deficiency of service as alleged. So, in the instant case we find that the facts of the Complainant is totally unchallenged. This Commission perused the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the relevant clause of Consumer Protection E-commerce Rules, 2020 and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts stated by the Complainant clearly established that there was deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency of service as alleged and established. Such being the position, we are of the view that the instant case succeeds.

 

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 03.11.21 and admitted on 22.11.21. 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/88/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No.1 and exparte against OP No.2 but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

        Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Complainant.

        Both the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,799/- to the Complainant.

        Both the OPs are also directed to pay Rs. 2,799/- to the Complainant as mental pain and agony and for blocking the flipkart account of the Complainant.

        Both the OPs are also directed to unblock the flipkart account of the Complainant.

        Both the OPs are directed to pay Rs. 5,598/- (Five thousand five hundred and ninety eight only) in total ( for tri cycle price and mental pain and agony respectively) to the Complainant within 60 days from the date of this order id the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,598/- will carry interest @ 10% pa on and from 01.08.2023.

        The Complainant is directed to refund the tri cycle within 7 days from the date of receiving the payment from the OPs, to the agent of the OPs who will receive the said product from the house of the Complainant after giving the receipt to that effect.

        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                               Member                      President.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. AJAY KUMAR DAS]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. NITYANANDA ROY]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.