DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 627
Instituted on: 23.12.2019
Decided on: 15.02.2021
Malkeet Singh @ Goldy aged about 35 years son of Sh. Hardev Singh, resident of House No.1004, Preet Colony, Ward No.4, near New Bus Stand, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Ozone Manay Tech Park, #56/18 &55/09, 7th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosour Road, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka (India) through its authorized signatory.
2. Ace Mobiles, J-7, 1st Floor, Beriwala Bagh, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064 through its authorized signatory.
3. Blue Dart Express Ltd. office at Ground Floor, Hotel Mayur, Sangrur HO, Opposite at HDFC Bank Friends Colony, Kaula Park, Sangrur, Tehsil and District Sangrur.
….Opposite parties
For the complainant: :Shri Davinder Sharda,Adv.
For the OP No.2 :Exparte.
For the OP NO.3 :Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.
Quorum: Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
Shri V.K.Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
1. Shri Malkeet Singh, complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant placed an order of mobile Oppo F7 (Black Colour, 64 GB internal memory) of an amount of Rs.13,529/- with the OP number 1 on 3.10.2019. At the time of receiving the above said order from the complainant, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.13529/- through his credit card in favour of OP number 1. On 10.10.2019 the complainant received one parcel from the OP number 3 and after receiving the same when the complainant opened the said parcel, it was found that the mobile set was not the same one which was ordered and further the mobile set was in broken condition and different local unnamed branch. As such the complainant shocked to see the same. The complainant immediately approached to the concerned official of OP umber 1 through telephone conversation and the officials of OP number 1 gave assurance to the complainant for solving the problem within 10 days but nothing was done by the OPs. Thus, the complainant got served a legal notice upon the OPs on 1.11.2019 but nothing was again done by the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.13,529/- along with interest and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. Record shows that the OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such was proceeded against exparte.
3. In reply filed by Op number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious and has been filed only to injure the interest and reputation of OP. The complainant is not a consumer and that the complainant did not obtain any service of the OP at any point of time. It is stated further that the consignment in question was successfully delivered to Krishma, authorized representative of the complainant on 10.10.2019 in sealed intact condition and no complaint was ever lodged by the complainant with regard to any deficiency in delivering the consignment. On merits, it is been stated that the consignment in question has been delivered to the authorized representative of the complainant on 10.10.2019. It is stated that the OP has no concern if the product is broken. Lastly, the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.
4. The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant placed an order of mobile Oppo F7 (Black Colour, 64 GB internal memory) of an amount of Rs.13,529/- with the OP number 1 on 3.10.2019 but the grievance of the complainant is that though the Ops paid the amount to the Ops, but the mobile set was not the same one which was ordered and further the mobile set was in broken condition and different local unnamed branch. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant immediately approached to the concerned official of OP umber 1 through telephone and he assured to solve the problem of the complainant but nothing was done. As such, the complainant has prayed that the complaint be accepted.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 3 has argued that there is no fault on the part of the OP number 3 and the parcel sent by the Ops number 1 and 2 has already been given to the complainant and that there is no fault on the part of OP number 3. As such the OP number 3 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed qua OP number 3.
7. To prove the case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit and has deposed as per the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the legal notice, Ex.C-3 are the postal receipts, Ex.C-4 is the copy of message vide which it has been stated that the OP is unable to refund the amount. Ex.C-5 is the copy of email receipt from Flipkart and Ex.C-6 is the message in which it has been stated that return rejected. Ex.C-7 is an important document vide which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.13529/- to the OP. Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-11 are the copies of message, Ex.C-12 is the receipt vide which the amount of Rs.13529/- was received by the OP.
8. On the other hand, the OP number 3 has tendered affidavit of Vivek Kumar Ex.OP3/1 and has deposed as per the written version. Admittedly in the present case the complainant placed an order with the OP and paid an amount of Rs.13,529/- to the OP. There is no document to prove that the complainant is a consumer of the Bluedart i.e. OP number 3. The order was booked by OP number 1 with the OP number 3 and the parcel was delivered to the complainant. It is mentioned that the mobile set was in broken condition and was not of the same brand which was ordered by the complainant. So, it is clear that the wrong mobile set was delivered by the OP number 2 to the complainant.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 2 to supply the complainant new mobile set i.e. Oppo F7 (Black colour, 64 GB internal memory). The OP number 2 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite party number 2 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
February 15, 2021.
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Member President
