Orissa

Cuttak

CC/201/2023

Jagan Kumar Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

T K Satapathy & associates

15 Dec 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.201/2023

 

Jagan Kumar Sahoo,

S/o: Nilamani Sahoo,

At:Srivihar Colony,P/o:Tulasipur,

P.S:Bidanasi,Dist:Cuttck.                                   ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.     Flipkart Pvt. Ltd.,

At:Buildings Alyssa,Begonia & Clover,

Embassy Tech Village,Outer Ring Road,

                  Deverabeesanahalli,Vill-Bengaluru,

                 Dist-Bangalore-560103

 

2.     E-kart Logistics,

                        At:CVXV+PM4,Surya Vihar,

                        Dist:Cuttack-753012.                                             ...Opp. Parties.                                   

 

   Present:      Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

          Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

  Date of filing:    08.06.2023

  Date of Order:  15.12.2023

 

  For the complainant:            Mr. T.K.Satpathy,Adv. & Associates.

     For the O.Ps 1 & 2   :             Mr. S.K.Mohanty, Adv. & Associates.

 

    Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased one Men Black Sports Sandal of Nike AIR MAX SOL for a price of Rs.5153/- on 27.2.2023 through the Website of O.P no.1 and it was delivered to him 2.3.2023.  That day when the complainant opened the seal of the packet, he found the product that which was delivered to him was not the same for which he had placed his order.  He immediately had requested O.P no.1 to replace the same and his request was accepted by O.P no.1 on 9.3.2023.  On 12.3.2023 the complainant had received a message that picking up the delivered product was rejected.  Inspite of repeated endeavours, since then both the O.Ps have refused for replacement of the sports sandal that which was intended to be purchased by the complainant.   The complainant had issued legal notice to them even.  It is for the said reason having no other way out, the complainant has come up with this case seeking direction to the O.Ps in order to return his paid amount of Rs.5153/- for purpose of the said Sandal together with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in their service which had caused mental agony to him. He has further prayed for the cost of his litigation and also for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

          Alongwith his complaint petition, he has attached copies of several documents and copies of e.mail chatts  in order to prove his case.

2.       Both the O.Ps in this case have contested but have filed their respective separate written versions.

          From the written version of O.P no.1, it is alleged that the complainant has suppressed the material facts and that his case is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  O.P No.1 has urged through his written version that he is not the seller of the product as purchased by the complainant.  Thus, refund or replacement of the same by him does not arise.  According to O.P no.1, he is only a logistic service provider thereby facilitating the trade in between the buyer and the seller.  When the O.P no.1 has no role to play therein, he has prayed through his written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed against him by the complainant.

          The O.P no.2 through his written version has also stated that the complainant had suppressed the material facts and his case being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed.  O.P no.2 has stated that he is only the logistic partner who facilitates logistic transactions.  Thus, it is his contention that the product that which was purchased by the complainant of this case, from the seller is in no way connected to him for which he is not liable in any way in this case.  He has also prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

          The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit in this case.  O.P no.1 has filed evidence affidavit also through one Miss. Sanchi Chhabra who claims to be the authorised signatory of O.P no.1.  Similarly, O.P No.2 has also filed evidence affidavit through one Mr. Prabin Kejriwal who also claims to be the authorised signatory of O.P No.2.  The evidence affidavits as filed here in this case from either sides, it is noticed that the contents of those are only the reiterations of their respective averments as made by the parties to this case and nothing else.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

                      i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

          ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of  the O.Ps and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

         iii.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no. ii.

           Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue in this case, is taken up  first for consideration here.

          After perusing the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition, contents of the written versions of the O.Ps, the copies of documents as filed  by the complainant so also the evidence affidavits as filed from either sides, it is not in dispute that the complainant had placed order for purchasing  one Men Black Sports Sandal of Nike AIR MAX SOL for a price of Rs.5153/- on 27.2.2023 but the sandal that which  was delivered to him was quite different from the product  which he had intended to purchase.  As it is noticed, that when the complainant had sent mail to that effect, his return was also approved on 21.4.2023 but since because the product was not replaced or the money was not refunded, the complainant had to issue leal notice to the O.Ps.  From the copies of e.mail chatts as provided by the complainant here in this case, it is noticed that infact the O.Ps had admitted and had agreed to refund the same for the faulty product delivered by them and to get back the said different product from him but since when the same was not effected, the complainant had come up with this case. 

On perusal of written version of the O.P no.1, it is noticed that one Miss Sanchi Chhabra has filed affidavit that she is the authorised signatory of O.P no.1 and in such power vested upon her, she has filed written version as well as the evidence affidavit on behalf of O.P no.1.  Similarly, it is noticed that one Mr. Prabin Kejriwal has filed affidavit that he is the authorised signatory of O.P no.2 and being vested with such power he has filed the written version as well as the evidence affidavit on behalf of O.P no.2.  In both the said two cases of the O.Ps here in this case, it is noticed that though the authorised signatories, as they so claimed; they had not produced any Letter of Authority so as to apprise this Commission that infact they were duly authorised by the respective O.Ps in this case in order to file written version as well as evidence affidavit.  In this context, it would be worthwhile to quote a pertinent decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs. M/s. Kingston Computers (I) Pvt. Ltd.  decided in Civil Appeal No.2014 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP( C) No.18179/2009) wherein their lordships have held that “In our view, the judgment under challenge is liable to be set aside because the respondent had not produced any evidence to prove that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was appointed as a Director of the company to file suit against the appellant and authorised Shri Ashok K.Shukla to do so.  The Letter of Authority issued by Shri Raj K.Shukla, who described himself as the Chief Executive Officer of the company, was nothing but a scrap of paper because no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors delegating its powers to Shri Raj K.Shukla to authorise another person to file suit on behalf of the company.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the one passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit of the respondent is restored.” 

So keeping in mind the valuable findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court, when the persons those who have filed written versions and evidence affidavits on behalf of the O.Ps in this case have not produced any Letter of Authority, those written versions and evidence affidavits cannot be taken into consideration.  Moreso, when the refund was already approved, it is not understood as to under what circumstances the same was not carried out here in this case and there is no explanation made in that regard.  The plea of both the O.Ps that they are only online platform facilitators effecting the trade in between the buyer and seller having no role to play in the trade does not hold good.  It is because, the C.P.Act,2019 has categorically mentioned at Regulations-4 & 5 of the Consumer Protection(E.Commerce Rules) 2020 about the Duties and Responsibilities of the E.Commerce platform in order to ensure that a genuine transaction is taking place and they should provide the proper and correct address of the trader to the seller in case of any requirement to that effect and also to supervise about the genuinity of the product sold and purchased.  Thus, keeping the facts and circumstances of this case in mind, it is noticed that infact both the O.Ps are found to be deficient in their service and also to have practised unfair trade here in this case.  Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the complainant.  Hence, it is so ordered;

Issues no.i & iii.

              From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

                The case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps 1 & 2 who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case. The O.Ps are thus directed to refund the complainant the cost of the product i.e. Rs.5153/-  alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per from 27.02.2023 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay  compensation of  sum of  Rs.30,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and harassment as well as a further sum of  Rs.10,000/- towards cost of his litigation.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

                Order pronounced in the open court on the 15^th day of December,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

 

                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                        President

 

 

                                                                                 Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                              Member