Date of filing: 27-01-2018 Date of Order : 30.08.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
TUESDAY THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2018
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 07 / 2018
G.V. Ravendra Reddy, S/o G. Venkata Rami Reddy,
13/611, Sainathpuram, Kadapa Road, Mydukur,
Kadapa District – 516 172, Andhra Pradesh. ….Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Managing Director,
Intex Technologies (India) Ltd., D.18/2,
Okhla Industries Area, Phase – II,
New Delhi – 110020.
2. The Management of Flipkart,
Flipkart Intext Pvt. Ltd., Ozone maney Tech part,
#56/18&55/09, 7th Floor, Garvebhgvipalya,
Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560068, Karnataka. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 21-8-2018 in the presence of complainant appeared as in person and Sri M. Vara Prasad, Advocate for O.P.2 and O.P.1 called absent and set exparte on 25.4.2018 upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint in person under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this Forum to direct the opposite parties to replace Air conditioner 1.5 tone inverter split model with 5 star energy rating and to pay Rs. 87,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency in service to pay Rs. 4,000/- towards costs of the complaint to the complainant.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:-
The complainant purchased Intex 1.5 ton inverter split model with 5 star energy rating Air Conditioner from flipkart company i.e. O.P.2 on 18.12.2017 for Rs. 28,999/- in order I.D No. OD111015682614233000. But he received the product through O.P.2 a non-inverter model and no energy 5 star rating. Then the complainant put replacement of his product the company had not given response. Complainant sent a registered letter on 06.01.2018 and the company responded to replace the product and send a person on 17.01.2018 and the person took product and gave a product pickup copy. On 23.01.2018 again the company sends the same non-inverter model no energy rating. So the complainant rejected the product. The complainant also sends e-mail to that effect but no response from the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Opposite party No. 1 set exparte on 25.04.2018.
4. Opposite party No. 2 filed written version denied the allegations in the complaint regarding deficiency in service and his responsibility to pay the claims of complainant. It is further averred O.P.2 mere online intermediary 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. This seller of product is third party seller as per invoice copy. So O.P.2 being mere online intermediary does not enter into any binding contract with the buyer for sale of any product. So O.P.2 is not liable for any alleged delivery product specification for what the complainant had ordered. It is only for the seller of the product who had sole responsibility to supply the correct product to the complainant. The complainant had ordered inverter split AC but he allegedly received non-inverter model for which the complainant raised replacement request his replacement request was accepted by the seller of the product and another product was sent to the complainant by the buyer. However, the complainant alleged to have received the same wrong product for the second time so he denied taking the delivery of the same. Then the seller of the product as a goodwill gesture offered to refund the amount of the product to the complainant as he was not able to fulfill the order of the complainant but the complainant with dishonest intention of extorting money from the opposite parties, demanded exorbitant amount of compensation along with the refund. Hence, refund request was cancelled from the end of the seller of the product. O.P.2 being an online intermediary has only forwarded the information to the complainant as it was received from the seller of the product. So the complainant has no cause of action against O.P.2 has no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on his part. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. On behalf of complainant his affidavit is filed and got marked Exs. A1 to A3. On behalf of O.P.2 filed affidavit of authorized signatory along with counter and got marked Exs. B1 & B2. After closure of evidence complainant and O.P.2 filed written arguments.
6. Heard oral arguments on both sides and considered written arguments and perused material placed on record.
7. On the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Is there any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2 as pleaded by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed against Opposite parties 1 & 2, if so what extent?
- To what relief ?
8. Point Nos. i and ii: These two points are connected to each other, hence, they are discussed together for the sake of convenience and better understanding.
9. The complainant in person contended that he ordered the product of AC 1.5 tone inverter split model with 5 star rating through O.P.2 in online for the product of O.P.1 company. On seeing online and O.P.2 accepted the proposal and taken the order but delivered wrong product which was returned by him and he placed replacement order again. Again opposite parties sent the same model with non – inverter non 5 star rating. So the complainant rejected to take delivery of the product from O.P.2 person and he expected his amount of Rs. 28,999/- to credit to his account. But not returned by the opposite parties through they received the product from complainant. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they caused mental agony to him to file this complaint as such he is entitled for the reliefs.
10. Per contra the learned counsel for O.P.2 contended that the O.P.2 is only intermediary person between the complainant and O.P.1, who is the seller of the product. Therefore, there is no role of him with regard to sending wrong product to the complainant and no deficiency in service on his part and no cause of action against him. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the consumer case is not established against him.
11. The admitted facts are the complainant made online order through O.P.2 for purchase of Intel 1.5 tone inverter split model AC with 5 star rating of O.P.1 company for Rs. 28,999/-. But he received a non inverter model with no star rating. So the complainant returned the same and put a replacement of his product when sent a registered letter on 06.01.2018 the company again sent a product on 23.01.2018 with same non inverter split model and with no energy rating. So he rejected the product and send e-mail also to that effect. O.P2 in his written version / reply to the complaint in para – 4 page -13 admitted the same, regarding the complainant ordered inverter model AC and also requested for replacement etc., facts. According to O.P.2 in para – 4 of reply in page – 13 when the company offered to refund amount of the product of the complainant the complainant demanded exorbitant amount of compensation along with refund. Hence, the refund request was cancelled from the end of seller of the product. This admission of O.P.2 in his written version / reply to the complaint supports the case of the complainant that the opposite parties are not able to fulfill the order made by the complainant through O.P.2 by supplying 1.5 tones AC with 5 star rating so they offered refund of the price. According to O.P.2 the complainant demanded exorbitant compensation amount apart from refund amount. So the refund request was cancelled. But there is no evidence placed by the opposite parties that the complainant demanded exorbitant amount or they offered to refund the price of the product at Rs. 28,999/- as per invoice of Ex. A1. According to the complaint he was not received proper product ordered from opposite parties or refund of his amount as per invoice in spite of issuing Ex. B2 notice. Ex. A3 dt. 17.01.2018 proved that the product was received by the company from the complainant and they issued acknowledgement to that effect. As seen from the documentary evidence placed on record that the opposite parties received defective product supplied to the complainant who is the consumer of them but neither supplied proper product ordered or refunded amount of Rs. 28,999/- as per invoice Ex.A1, through issued notice under Ex. A2. Therefore, we find deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the same was established by the complainant against the opposite parties. Since the complainant received the product through O.P.2 by ordering online of the product of O.P.1, O.Ps 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs. 28,999/- towards cost of inverter as per invoice Ex. A1 and also to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of the complaint to the complainant. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
12. Point No. iii:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs. 28,999/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) towards cost of 1.5 tone A/c as per invoice of Ex.A1 along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 27.01.2018 till realization and shall also pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards mental agony and pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The rest of the claims of complainant are disallowed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 30th day of August 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For complainant : NIL For opposite party : Nil
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant
Ex. A1 P/c of invoice bill for Rs. 28,999/- dt. 16-12-2017.
Ex. A2 P/c of Register post letter dt. 06.01.2018.
Ex. A3 P/c of E-cart pickup letter dt. 17.01.2018
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties
Ex. B1 Attested copy of press note issued by DIPP.
Ex. B2 Attested copy of extract of flipkart terms.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to
1) Sri G.V. Ravendra Reddy, S/o G. Venkata Rami Reddy, 13/611, Sainathpuram, Kadapa Road, Mydukur, Kadapa District – 516 172, Andhra Pradesh.
2) Sri M. Vara Prasad, Advocate for O.P.2.
3) The Managing Director,Intex Technologies (India) Ltd., D.18/2, Okhla Industries Area, Phase – II, New Delhi – 110020
B.V.P
