Orissa

Rayagada

CC/145/2018

Sri Laxmi Narayan Padhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Binny Bansal Director, Flipkart Internet Pvt. LTD., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

24 Mar 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.     145      / 2018.                           Date.      24    . 3. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

 

Sri Laxmi Narayan Padhi, S/O: Ramakrishna Padhi, Brahmin Street, , ,  Po/Dist: Rayagada. (Odisha).765 001. mobile  No.9438106780                                                                                           …Complainant.

Versus.

 

1. The  Manager, Binny Bansal, Director, Flipkart   Internet   Pvt. Ltd.,  Bangalore- 560034.
2. Sri Subhasish Chakraborty, Managing Director, DTDC Express   Ltd., Bangalore-560047.
3. The Manager, DTDC Express Ltd., Rayagada..           .…..Opposite    Parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self..

.For the O.P No.1  :- Sri  Rama Kanta  Jena, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P.No.2:- Sri  Nihar  Kanta   Patra,, Advocate, Bhubaneswar

For the O.P.No.3:- Set exparte..

.

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for non delivery of ordered articles by the O.P No.2 & 3  to the complainant  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.                                      

On being noticed the O.P. No. 1  have  filed written version through their learned counsel and contended   that  the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed against the O.P  No..1.  The O.P. No. 1    is  protected  by the provisions of Section-79 of the Information  Technology Act, 2000. The  O.P. No 1 neither offers  nor provides any assurance and/or offers  warranty   to the     buyers  of the  product.. The  O.P.   No. 1 is  neither  a  ‘trader’ nor a ‘service provider’ and there does not exists any privity of contract   between the complainant and  the O.P. No.1.  The O.P. No. 1 is   only  limited  to providing on  line platform  to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its  website. The O.P  No. 1  taking one and other pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P No. 1..The O.P. No. 1   in their written version relied  citations of the apex court. The O.P No.1`  prays to dismiss the complaint petition against   O.P.  No. 1  for the best  interest   of justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.P No.2 put in their appearance through their learned counsel  and filed written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  No.2  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P  No.2. Hence the O.Ps  No.2 prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being noticed the O.P No..3 neither entering in to appear before the District Commission nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  10 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.3..  Observing lapses of around two years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.3. The action of the O.P No.3 is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. No.3 was  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

Heard from the learned counsels for the O.P. No. 1 & O.P. No.  2  and complainant.  Perused the record filed by the parties.

The  learned counsel  for the O.P No.1 & O.P. No.2  advanced arguments  vehemently touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that and undisputedly  the complainant had  booked  one Raika Dress  on Dt. 3.8.2018  from the online platform of O.P.No.1 (Flip kart) for  the birth day of   complainants daughter  which cost of Rs.790/- with promise to pay  the  same on delivery.  Undisputedly the complainant got message  on  his mobile  No.9438106780  which reads as “Tuesday on Dt. 7.8.2018 time  16.44 packed  with order ID   OD113014992257144000  has been packed  by  the seller and will be shipped soon.  Undisputedly  on Dt. 10.8.2018 the above order  Dress  was reached  at Rayagada.  But  the O.Ps 2 & 3 (Courier)  were  not delivered the same  to the complainant but  returned the same to the O.P. No.1. Hence  this C.C. case.     

The O.P. No.2 (Courier  Bangalore) in their written version  contended that        the O.P. No.2 & 3  by performing  their duties, they have send  the above mentioned message  to the complainant on Dt. 14.8.2018 and when they did not get any call or message from the complainant they send back the said consignment to the O.P. No. 1. The O.Ps  No.2  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

This district commission found there is a  gross deficiency  in service on the part of the O.Ps No.2 & 3 (Courier)  for non delivery  of  articles to the complainant  for which the complainant sustained mental agony, loss of prestige.

At  this stage this District commission  observed   the interest of justice  would met if  the O.Ps  No.2 & 3 (Courier)    paid  Rs.3,000/- to the complainant  for  their negligence. The O.Ps 2 & 3 (Courier)  are jointly and severally liable for the same.

To meet the ends of justice  the following order is passed.

                                                ORDER.

In the result the  complainant petition is allowed  in part  against the  O.Ps 2 & 3(Courier)  and dismissed against  the O.P. No.1 (Flipkart).

The O.Ps 2 & 3 (Courier) are  ordered to pay Rs.3,000/- towards  damages for mental agony. Parties are left to bear their own cost.

This is to be complied by the  O.Ps 2 & 3 (Courier) with in 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated and corrected by me.

Pronounced on this  24^th. day of  March, 2021.

 

Member.                                                                                  President.