DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 72 of  2023

 

 

Sri Navin Singh @ Navin Kumar Singh,

S/O- Sri Yogendra Singh,

Siddhi Ashram,

P.S  &  P.O. - Amtali,  

West Tripura, Pin- 799130. ...........Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. Flipkart Internet Private Limited,

Buildings Alyssa,

Begonia & Clover, Embassy Tech Village, 

Outer Ring Road,

Devarabeesanahalli Village,

Bengaluru- 560103,

Karnataka, India.

 

2. Auster Marketing,

Pariavaran Complex 2, C Block,

New Delhi, South Delhi,

New Delhi- 110030.

 

3. One Plus Technology India Private Limited,

UB City, 24, Vittal Mallya Road, KG Halli,

D'souza Layout, Ashok Nagar, 

Bengaluru- 560001,

Bengaluru Bangalore KA- 560001. .....Opposite Parties.    

 

 

 

 

 

  

________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For  the  O.P. No.1 : Sri Amritlal Saha,

 

For the O.P. No. 2 : Sri Monoswaee Dey,

For the O.P. No.3 : Exparte.

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

 

1. Mr. Navin Singh here-in-after called “the complainant” has filed this complaint against the O.Ps alleging inter alia that on 04.08.2023 he booked one Mobile Phone namely One Plus 11 R 5G (Sonic Black) having specification 256 GB internal storage and 16 GB RAM and accordingly paid Rs.44,149/- to the O.P. through Credit Card of his mother Sangita Singh.

 

1.1 Consequently, the O.P. No.1 confirmed the order through IVR and uploaded the invoice in the Flipkart application of the complainant.

 

1.2 On 10.08.2023 the product was delivered to the complainant but the complainant found that the O.P. No.1 delivered one One Plus 11 R 5G (Sonic Black) 126 GB internal storage and 8 GB RAM instead of his original mobile which he booked. The complainant on the same day raised a complaint in the application of the Flipkart which the O.P. replied that “as per  conversation your issue is resolved” although the matter was not resolved at all. Thereafter on 12.08.2023, 13.08.2023 and 19.08.2023 the complainant lodged complaint with the O.P. No.1 to which the O.P. No.1 repeatedly answered “as per conversation your issue is resolved” although the issue was not resolved at all. 

 

1.3 On 13.08.2023 the complainant raised one online complaint through consumer grievance portal vide no. 4813482 where the company remarked that this is “seller/brand replacement” and advised the complainant to get in touch with the brand for further assistance.   

 

1.4 Accordingly the complainant had conversation with the customer care of the One Plus Mobile company who informed that it is matter of the Flipkart and the Seller and they are not at all concerned in this matter. 

 

1.5 Hence, this complaint seeking refund of Rs.44,149/- along with compensation and cost. 

 

2. The case has been proceeding exparte against the O.P. No.3 vide order dated 26.12.2023 as the O.P. No.3 failed to appear inspite of receiving summon. 

 

2.1 The O.P. No.2 in written objection pleaded that the O.P. No.2 is a seller of Flipkart Internet i.e., the  O.P. No.1 which is registered under Flipkart assured program and the O.P. No.1 did all the billings and packed the product on behalf of the other O.Ps. Hence, the O.P. No.2 is not responsible in the matter. 

 

2.2 The O.P. No.1 in written objection pleaded that the grievance of not delivering the actual product is attributable to the other O.Ps as the O.P. No.1 is electronic platform which merely acts as an intermediary to facilitate the sale transaction between the independent third party sellers and independent customers. The independent third party sellers used the Flipkart platform to list, advertise and offer to sell their products.

 

3. The parties submitted evidence and documents. 

4. Hearing argument we are not at all convinced about the argument of O.P. No.1 that the O.P. No.1 is not responsible merely because of the fact that the O.P. No.1 is a platform only to advertise, offer to  sell   other products etc. 

4.1 Here, in this case the complainant booked his product with the O.P. No.1 and made the payment to O.P. No.1 only. And therefore, it is the responsibility of the O.P. No.1 to reach the actual product to the customer otherwise the O.P. No.1 shall bear the responsibility of any deficiency in service. Therefore, the O.P. No.1 is deficient in service.

 

5. In the result, it is ordered that since the complainant has received the product although not as per specification it is not justified to ask the O.P. No.1 to refund the whole amount instead it is ordered that the O.P. No.1 shall pay compensation to the complainant to tune of Rs.40,000/- within one month from today, otherwise it shall carry interest @ Rs.7.5% P.A. from today. This amount of compensation is inclusive of litigation cost. 

6. The case stands disposed off.   

7. Supply copy of this Final Order free of cost to the parties.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR(SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.