Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 549.
Instituted on : 13.11.20218.
Decided on : 27.01.2021.
Vishav Sharma, aged 34 years son of Shri Bharat Bhushan Sharma, resident of H. No.664 B-3, Quilla Mohalla, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. Vaishnavi Summit, Gr. Floor, 7th Main 80 Feet Road, 3rd Block Koramangala Industrial layout, Banalore-560039 Karnataka.
- Tech Connect retail Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.403 4th floor, Banni1, Next to Hilton Doble tree Hotel, Gold Course Road, Sector 56 Gurgaon, Haryana India-122011.
- E-Kart Pvt. Ltd. 15A Cross road Yelahanka Satellite town, Yelahanka, Bangaluru-560039.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDARY, MEMBER.
SMT.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER
Present: Smt. Shuchi Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased a laptop from flipkart online portal on 14th October and prepaid the payment through credit card. The respondents launched their big-billion days scheme and allured by their advertisement, ordered a ASUS Laptop for Rs.22,624/-. The online request for delivery of the laptop was confirmed on 22nd October and same was delivered on 23rd October. The complainant was surprised when the package delivered to his place was opened and it only contained a pair of bricks used to construct houses instead of laptop. In this regard, the complainant immediately informed flipkart on the customer care through telephonically and email and also on the mobile-app clearly stating that the package delivered to him has the bricks instead of laptop. The complainant received an email from the customer support and seeking 10-12 days time to resolve the matter and also assured that the case has been forwarded to a specialist team. Thereafter, the respondent replied through email on 3.11.2018 stating that they have re-checked with the seller as well as their courier partner and have confirmed delivery of the item with the product intact. Complainant again requested the opposite parties to look into the matter but there was no positive response from the opposite parties. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.22624/- alongwith interest @ of 18% from the date of deposit till the date of actual realization and also to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.250000/- on account of harassment to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that the answering opposite party is neither a seller nor the manufacturer/producer/ service centre of the product in this case. The product purchased by the complainant was manufactured by ASUS and sold by a third party seller registered on ‘Flipkart platform’ as can be evidenced from the invoice copy. It is further submitted that the answering opposite party only provides an online platform where third party sellers sell their products and visitors/buyers purchase such products from the respective sellers on the website/app out of their own free will and choice. It is also submitted that advertisement with regard to price, specification, quality and description etc. are listed by the manufacturer of the product. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that the answering opposite party is carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by others. The answering opposite party is a registered seller on the website “Flipcart.com” and sells products of other manufacturers, traders etc. under their respective trademarks through the website. In the present case, the answering opposite party has delivered the product in a sealed box to the complainant within the time specified in the order and hence, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of answering opposite party. The answering opposite party has acquired good market reputation for its range of products offered and for its exceptional customer support. It is also submitted that initially when the complainant approached the answering opposite party the grievance of the complainant was not regarding the alleged issue in the complaint rather the complainant initiated the process of return of product due to allegedly missing product. Now, it is significant to note here that once the complainant has already registered the return request for reasons of alleged missing product, it clearly means that the product has been used by the complainant and subsequently it clarifies that the product was duly delivered by the answering opposite party to the complainant in a sealed box within the time specified in the order. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.3 was made a statement on dated 26.7.2019 that the reply already filed by OPs no.1 and 2 be also read on behalf of opposite party no.3.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and has closed his evidence on dated 26.9.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties made a statement on dated 22.12.2020 that reply already filed on their behalf be read into evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case complainant had ordered a laptop worth Rs.22624/- online through opposite party No.1. The grievance of the complainant is that the box was delivered to him on dated 21.10.2018 but when he opened the box, it was containing a set of bricks used for construction of house. Complainant requested the opposite parties telephonically and through email but his problem was not resolved by the opposite parties. To prove his case, complainant has placed on record copy of bill Ex.C1, order details Ex.C3, copy of emails Ex.C2, Ex.C8 to Ex.C11 and copy of photographs of box Ex.C5 to Ex.C7. The photographs Ex.C6 & Ex.C7 shows that the box is containing two bricks. Complainant has also placed on record a video CD Ex.C12, which clearly proves that he received a set of bricks instead of laptop. As such opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the price of laptop to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to 3 to refund the amount of Rs.22624/-(Rupees twenty two thousand six hundred and twenty four only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.14.12.2018 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
27.01.2021.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
……………………………….
Tripti Pannu, Member
