Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/590/2019

Karaj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Flipkart Internet Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Dec 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	590 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	01.07.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	17.12.2020

 

 

 

 

Karaj Singh s/o Sh.Satnam Singh, R/o H.no.E-4-403, Maya Garden, Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali (Punjab)

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  M/s Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, No.6/B, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 034 (India)

2]  M/s Ekart Logistic Offices, Brigade Manae Court, First Floor No.111, Koramangala, Industrial Layout, Bangalore 560 095, Karnatka (India)

….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH.B.M.SHARMA                      MEMBER

 

 

Argued by :- None for the complainant

             Sh.Rohit Kumar Adv. for Opposite Parties

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, as per the case, the complainant placed an Online order on the website of the OP No.1 for one Apple Airpods on 7.5.2019 and the same was delivered to him by OP No.2 on 13.5.2019.  It is averred that on opening of the box/parcel, the complainant found duplicate Airpods instead of Apple Airpods and as such complainant lodged a complaint No.1376989 on 21.5.2019 with OPs, but they did not reply for the same.  It is also averred that when the complainant again sent email to OPs, they replied that the account of the complainant has been terminated on account of high number of returns, whereas it is not the position.  It is further averred that the duplicate airpods are still lying with the complainant.   

         It is stated that the complainant also placed an order for supply of cover in black colour with OP No.1, but it supplied White Colour cover, which has also been reported to OPs and they deposited an amount of Rs.326/- against the value of the same and collected the white colour cover from the complainant.  It is submitted that due to said act & conduct of the OPs the complainant has been harassed and hence this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       In its written statement, OP No.1 has pleaded that  the role/involvement of OP No.1 is an intermediary only who provides a marketplace to the sellers and buyers of product to facilitate the transactions electronic commerce for various goods by and between the respective buyers and sellers and enables them to deal in various categories of goods.  It does not directly or indirectly sells any product on flipkart platform and rather all the products on flipkart platform are sold by third party sellers who avail of the online market place services provided by it, on terms decided by the respective sellers only.  It is stated that it was duly conveyed to the complainant that the seller has refused to refund the amount of the product, which is also clear from the document attached with complaint.  It is also stated that due to various return requests made by the complainant despite getting reply that the seller will not be able to fulfill the return request, the account was blocked by answering OP.  It is further stated that the product in question has neither been sold nor delivered by answering OP. Denying all other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed qua OP. 

         The OP No.2 has also filed reply stating that it does not have any role to play in the transaction took place between the complainant and seller or with OP No.1.  It is stated that the complainant has not impleaded seller as a party in the present complaint.  It is also stated that the OP No.2 acts only as a logistic partner only to facilitate logistic transactions between independent third party seller and independent end customers. It is pleaded that complainant has wrongly arrayed OP No.2 in the present complaint and hence the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of party.  It is also pleaded that the answering OP No.2 as a postmen is not liable for any type of defectiveness of product or wrong/used product.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying all other allegations, the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it. 

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The grouse of the complainant is that he has been supplied with duplicate airpods instead of Apple Airpods, as ordered with OPs on Online.  Neither the duplicate product has been changed with original one nor amount has been refunded.

          

7]       The contention of OP No.1 is that the complainant was conveyed that the seller has refused to refund the amount of the product and that due to various return requests made by complainant, his account has been blocked. It is also stated that the product in question has neither been sold nor delivered by OP-1. The contention of OP No.2 is that it only delivered the product in question to the complainant and is not liable for any type of defectiveness of product.

 

8]       We do not find any merit in the contentions of OP No.1 & 2.  Both the OPs are liable to refund the cost of the airpods on account of delivery of duplicate airpods to the complainant as the said order was placed with OP No.1 which was delivered by OP No.2.  As per their own admission, the OP No.1 has also blocked the account of the complainant due to claimed/alleged various return requests made by the complainant. The OP No.1, in our considered opinion, has acted arbitrarily in the matter.  As provenly, the order in question was placed with it and it is the prime duty of OP No.1 to ensure the delivery of genuine product to the end consumer. It is a reasonable presumption that the seller using the platform of OP No.1 for selling their products are verified and genuine sellers. OP No.1 cannot be allowed to shift its onus upon seller escaping its liability.  Both the OPs being liable to ensure delivery of genuine product remained deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant.  So far as the supply of white colour covers against the black colour cover is concerned, the complainant himself admitted to have received the amount of Rs.326/- against its value, so the said issue stands resolved at the end of OPs. 

 

9]       From the above discussion and findings, the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 has been proved, which certainly has caused harassment to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the OPs No.1 & 2 with direction to refund cost of airpods so paid by the complainant and also to pay compensation cost of Rs.2000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. 

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensation cost of Rs.1000/- apart from above relief. However, the complainant shall also refund the airpods so received by him to the OPs on receipt of above decreetal amount. 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

17^th Dec., 2020                                                                                                                                                                        Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER