Can't Entertain Complaints Involving Allegations Of Cheating & Fraud, Chandigarh District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Flipkart, Sony, And Online Seller
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench, comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member), and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member), held that complaints involving allegations of fraud, forgery, etc., cannot be entertained by Consumer Commissions and fall within the jurisdiction of a civil court. Thus, it dismissed the complaint filed by...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench, comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member), and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member), held that complaints involving allegations of fraud, forgery, etc., cannot be entertained by Consumer Commissions and fall within the jurisdiction of a civil court. Thus, it dismissed the complaint filed by a consumer alleging fraud on the part of Flipkart, Sony India, and an online seller.
Brief Facts:
Dr. Surya Prakash (“Complainant”) ordered a "Sony Cyber-Shot DSC RX100M7" camera from Flipkart and made an advance payment of Rs. 96,990/-. The camera was sold by Damson Technologies Pvt. Ltd (“Seller”) and manufactured by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (“Manufacturer”). Upon receiving the parcel on April 19, 2022, the Complainant discovered that the box did not contain the camera he ordered. Instead, the box contained an old, broken charger, a pack of two batteries, a wire, and a camera cover. The Complainant promptly lodged complaints via phone calls and emails to Flipkart, but Flipkart refused even to register his complaint. Despite reaching out to law enforcement agencies like the DGP, Chandigarh, and the Cyber Crime Cell, the Complainant received no resolution. Thereby, he filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”).
In response, Flipkart contested the complaint, arguing that the grievance should be directed towards the seller since it, being an intermediary, does not directly or indirectly sell products on the Flipkart platform. They emphasized that the actual seller was responsible for product delivery, replacement, or funding.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission noted that the complaint involved serious allegations of fraud and cheating against Flipkart, its online seller, and the manufacturer. In this regard, the District Commission referred to the case of Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd. II (2012) CPJ 151 (NC), wherein it was held that complaints involving allegations of fraud, forgery, etc., are beyond the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commissions. The District Commission held that such matters, which require voluminous evidence and consideration, should be adjudicated by the Civil Court. In light of this, the District Commission concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the complaint. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Case: Dr Surya Prakash vs Flipkart Pvt. Ltd. and others
Case No.: CC/966/2022
Advocate for the Complainant: Vikram Amarnath Garg
Advocate for the Respondent: Deepak Jaglan (O.P. 1 and 2) and Rohit Kumar (O.P. 3)