Orissa

Rayagada

CC/8/2019

B.Manamadha Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart, Registered Officer Consulting Rooms Pvt. LTd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

23 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,12.10  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.       08         / 2019.                                    Date.  23 .       9. 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  KumarMohapatra,                                       President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                          Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

 

Sri Baratam Manmadha Rao, S/O: Late B.Prakash Rao, UGMIT Road, Ist. Lane, Po/ Dist:Rayagada(Odisha).               …..Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager, Flipkart, Regd. Office,Consulting Rooms Pvt.,  Old Rajendranagar,  New Delhi- 110060.

2.The Manager, Maas Traders, G-2, Versova Oceanic-ICHS  seven Bunglaows  Gardens, Andheri (W), Mumbai, 400061, Maharastra.

3.The   Manager,  E-Kart Logistics Branch, Opposite  East coast Railway Station, Rayagada.                                                    …Opposite parties.           

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Sri K.Gh.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P No. 1& 3     :-Sri  R.K.Jena,  Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P.No.2:-  SetExparte.

 

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non supply of indented Nescafe  Coffee 2 Nos. of packets 200 (two hundred grams) each    for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed the O.P. No. 1& 3  have  filed written version through their learned counsel and contended   that  the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed against the O.P  No..1& 3.  The O.P. No. 1    is  protected  by the provisions of Section-79 of the Information  Technology Act, 2000. The  O.P. No 1 neither offers  nor provides any assurance and/or offers  warranty   to the     buyers  of the  product.. The  O.P.   No. 1 is  neither  a  ‘trader’ nor a ‘service provider’ and there does not exists any privity of contract   between the complainant and  the O.P. No.1.  The O.P. No. 1 is   only  limited  to providing on  line platform  to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its  website. The O.P  No. 1  taking one and other pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P No. 1.& 3..The O.P. No. 1   in their written version relied  citations of the apex court. The O.P No.1& 3`  prays to dismiss the complaint petition against   O.P.  No. 1& 3   for the best  interest   of justice.

On being noticed  the O.P No.2  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  5 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.2.  Observing lapses of around 9(Nine ) months  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.2. The action of the O.P  No. 2  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P  No.2  was  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

 

Heard from the complainant and from the learned counsels for the  O.P. No.1 & 3.   We perused the complaint petition and the documents filed by the parties.

         FINDINGS.

               

.               From the records it reveals that,  the complainanton Dt.08.12.2018  had  placed order to the O.P. No.2  for  purchase of 2(two) packets 200(two hundred grams quantity  each)   of  Nescafe Gold Sabar intense  coffee and also paid the price a sum of Rs.950/- to the O.P. No.2  through Flipcart on line i.e. O.P. No.1 vide invoice No. FA BKO11900000804(copies of the  tax invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).

The main grievance of the complainant was that  during opened the sealed packet he was found  two packets of choklates of large size 85% Co-co each 100 gms. was there Instead of ordered coffee packets. The said fact was intimated to the O.Ps immediately.but till date  no response have  received from the O.Ps.  Hence this C.C. case.

The  O.P. No.1(Flipcart) in their written version contended that  the  O.P.   No. 1 is  neither  a  ‘trader’ nor a ‘service provider’ and there does not exists any privity of contract   between the complainant and  the O.P. No.1.  The O.P. No. 1 is   only  limited  to providing on  line platform  to facilitate the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its  website

The O.P. No.3 (Courier)  in their written version  contended that  the complainant had  himself admitted  that he had received  a sealed packet and that there was no marks of damage or tampering, therefore it is pertinent that there was no foul play by the O.P. No.3(Courier). The details pertaining to the contents of the box is denied due to want of   knowledge the parcel was delivered to the complainant in the same conditon as it was picked by  the O.P. No.2 and sold by the O.P. No.2.

During the course of exparte hearing against the O.P. No.2  the complainant  annexed  certain documents such as the Tax invoice No. FA BKO11900000804     issued by the O.P.  No.2.

After carefully examining the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason  to disbelieve or discard the evidence already adduced by the complainant. The documentary evidence  tendered by the complainant clearly tends support and absolute corroboration   to  the evidence.  

In absence of any rebuttal materials from the side  of   O.P No.2   there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence put forth  by the  complainant  before the forum  whose evidence  suffers from no infirmity. The evidence adduced by the complainant  clearly leads us to arrive at a just conclusion that there is not only deficiency  in service  but also negligence  on the part of the O.P No.2  for   non supply of indented Nescafe  Coffee 2 Nos. of packets 200 (two hundred grams) eachas per the  provisions laid down under section 14 of the  C.P. Act.

On careful analysis   of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are clearly of the opinion  thatinspite of doing the needful, the O.Ps are failed to redress the deficiency in service and as a result the complainant was constrained  to file this complaint before the forum claiming the relief as sought for. 

                    We observed  two packets of choklates of large size 85% Co-co each 100 gms. was there Instead of ordered coffee packetsbut the O.P. No. 2 till date  has not supplied the indent coffee  after filing of the C.C. case.    Not responding to the grievance of a genuine consumer amounts to deficiency in service and in that line we hold that  the O.P. No.2  is   liable to supply indented  coffee  or to refund the  price.

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

ORDER

 

                  In resultant the complaint  stands  allowed  in part  against the  O.Ps.

                       

    The  Opposite party  No.2 (Seller)  is  ordered  to supply the indented Coffee 2 Nos. of packets 200(two hundred grams) each   besides  pay  compensation of Rs.1,000/-  towards mental agony undergone by the complainant  inter alia  cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.           

     Further, we direct the OPs to pay the aforesaid award amount  within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

Further  the O.P. No. 1 (FlifKart)  and O.P. No.3(Courier ) are  directed to refer the matter to the O.P. No.2(Seller) for early compliance of the above order and co-operate the complainant for better co-ordination with the O.P.  No. 2  to provide satisfying service  for which he is entitled.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

       Dictated and corrected by me.

 

       Pronounced in open forum today on this       23rd day of  September, 2019 under the seal and signature of this forum.

           

 

Member.                                                          Member.                                  President.