JUDGEMENT & O R D E R

Brief facts of the complainant’ case: filed under Section … of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short “Act”):

1. The complainant on 08.12.2018 ordered a mobile handset XC41531/Asus Zenfone 5Z midnight blue 128 GB, HSN: 85171290: IMEI- 355944094379286, 355944094379294 from Flipkart by paying Cash on delivery (COD) mode and on 18.12.2018 on payment of Rs 27, 999/- (Rupees Twenty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine only) to the Ekart logistic Courier Services, Itanagar. Since then, he had been using the mobile handset. A copy of Tax invoice is the enclosure-I
2. To his utter surprise, he received a message in his flip kart account that his order has been cancelled and returned.  So, he enquired about the matter to the courier service. The courier service personnel told him that it might be due to mistake and they will correct the same (A copy of Track receipt of Flipkart attached).
3. Then on 07.06.2019 complainant’s wife was asked to report to the Itanagar Police Station (PS). At PS, she was informed that complainant purchased mobile handset from the flipkart has been reported as stolen and the said mobile handset was seized from by Itanagar Police. It is only after going through tracking details of the shipment it was found that the mobile has been reported as lost at Itanagar Hub ITO by courier on 10.04.2019 (A copy Seizure memo by the police attached).
4. The complainant filed amended petition to implead Shri Koj Takum as opposite party no. 4, the one who lodged FIR and team leader/manager of courier service at Itanagar.
5. It is contended that such unethical act on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant was unnecessarily dragged into police case. It is to be mentioned that said FIR was given to the complainant only after the order passed was by this Forum on dated 27.08.2021. It is claimed that such act of the opposite parties caused major deficiency in service thereby causing hardship, physical and mental agony to the complainant.
6. The complainant has prayed for issuing direction by this Commission for returning of his mobile purchased from the opposite party No. 1 or to compensate him adequately.
7. Upon the notice, the Opposite parties appeared and contested the present consumer complaint case by filing their written statement. 
8. That the opposite parties no.1 & 2 contend in their reply that the complainant has not come with clean hand and moreover this Hon’ble Forum has no Jurisdiction to hear this matter, as such prayed for may be dismissal of the complaint.
9. The counsel of opposite parties No.1 & 2 placed a citation of Nariman Films vs Dilip R. Mehta & Anr. dated 21 October 2005 & Dr Uttam Kumar Samanta Vs Vodofone East limited & Ors. on 05.10.2018.
10. Learned counsel from all sides have filed their written arguments. We have heard their oral submission and have perused the records of the case.
11. The points for determination in the case are:
    1. Whether this forum has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint?
    2. Whether the opposite parties have been deficient in service and negligent in providing service to the complainant?
    3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation as claimed? If yes, what relief?
12. Point No. 1
13. The section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 talks about the jurisdiction of the District Forum which lays that a consumer shall file a complaint at a place where all or one of the opposite parties reside or carries on business, or has a branch office or personally works for gains. Now in the present case complainant resides at P-Sector Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh from where he ordered the mobile hand set through online shopping site flipkart and to substantiate this, he has placed an invoice slip bearing no. FABAGU1900224144, dated 09.12.2018 annexed as Enclosure-I. He has also enclosed the track shipment record bearing tracking ID: Ekart Logistic-FMPCO421931432 in which complainant’s order was cancelled after the FIR lodged by the opposite party No.3 at Itanagar police station annexed as Enclosure-II and a copy of seizure memo annexed as Enclosure- III.
14. The expression cause of action is the bundle of facts which give rise to a right or liability. In the present case, the documents which have been placed by the complainant before this Forum sufficiently show that the mobile handset he had purchased has been shown as lost in transit at Itanagar and FIR lodged at Itanagar which proves that cause of action arose from the office of the opposite party no. 3 Itanagar ITO HUB located at Itanagar. Hence, cause of action arose within the territorial Jurisdiction of this District forum. Hence, determination Point No. 1 is decided in affirmation and in favour of the complainant.

Point No. 2

15. It is case of the complainant that on 08.12.2018 ordered a mobile handset XC41531/Asus Zenfone 5Z midnight blue 128 GB, from Flipkart by applying Cash on delivery(COD) mode and the same mobile handset was received by him on 18.12.2018 on payment of Rs 27, 999/- to the Ekart logistic Courier Services at Itanagar. But after using the said mobile for 37 days he received a message from his flipkart account that his order was cancelled and to enquire about the matter, he went to Ekart logistic courier office at Itanagar and they have assured him that it is a mistake flipkart will correct that. But surprisingly his wife was called by the Itanagar police and then it came to know that the said mobile handset has been reported as Lost at Itanagar HUB ITO. The police have seized his purchased mobile handset. Therefore, such an unethical act on the part of opposite parties that too after making the full payment, the complainant was dragged into unnecessary harassment thereby causing mental agony. He has supported his compliant by documents:

i) Enclosure-I (A copy of Tax invoice dated 09.12.2018 against the said product)

ii) Enclosure-IIA (A copy of cancelled track record of the product dated 24.01.2019) Enclosure-II-B (A copy of track record reported as Lost by Itanagar Hub-ITO)

iii) Enclosure-III (A copy of seizure memo of the mobile handset)

Complainant has placed following citation in support of his claim as:

a) Rediff.com India Limited Vs Ms Urmila Munjal passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal on 11^th April 2013

b) Narendra Kaajla Vs Manager, Flipkart by District Consumer Redressal Commission on 29^th October 2015.

c) First Appeal No.492/2018 (Mr. Supriyo Ranjan Mahapatra Vs M/s Amazon Development Centre India Pvt Limited) by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Odissa.

16. The opposite parties no.1 & 2 in their reply admitted to the above complaint of the complainant in their written statement in Para 1, 2 & 3.
17. From the facts and documents mentioned herein above, it is clearly found that complainant ordered the mobile handset from the flipkart with an option of cash on delivery and the same was delivered to him after making full payment. After using the same mobile handset for 37 days, the complainant found that the shipment of the same product was cancelled by the Opposite party No.1 and later on reported as lost items at Itanagar HUB ITO dated 10.04.2019 for which FIR was lodged by the Ekartlogistic. Due to such act of the opposite parties without proper verifying delivery of the said product, the complainant was unnecessary dragged into the accusation of the offence of using stolen property. His mobile was seized by the police without any fault on his part.
18. Therefore, we are of considered view that opposite parties, who are dealing with ecommerce business need to manage the shipment of the products to their customers have completely failed in rendering proper services. Due their unethical and illegal acts, the complainant had to undergo unwarranted harassment both physically and mentally. We hold that opposite parties are jointly liable.
19. The complaint is allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed the to pay/ refund the amount of complainant’s mobile cost amounting to Rs 27, 999/-& to pay compensation amount of Rs 50, 000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) for unnecessary harassment and mental agony, etc. caused to complainant within the period of one month from today failing which OPs shall be liable to pay @6% annum till realization of the award.
20. Rs. 30, 000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) as cost of litigation to be paid by the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 within the period of one month from today failing which OPs shall be liable to pay @6% annum till realization of the award.
21. Judgment is pronounced in the open Commission on this 28^th day of October 2022 at Yupia.
22. The Registry of this Commission shall send a copy of order concerned opposite parties and receive cost of stationary as may be charged.

 Miss Deepa Yoka, Member               Shri Tarh Loma, Member 

Gote Mega, Presid