The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Central Mumbai has recently fined Flipkart Rs.13,000 for unilaterally canceling an order made by a customer for an iPhone in the case of Akshay Vijay Loke v Ekart Logistics and Another.
A Mumbai consumer forum has imposed a significant penalty on Flipkart, the popular e-commerce giant, for unilaterally cancelling a customer’s iPhone order. This decision highlights the growing scrutiny on the practices of online marketplaces and their obligations towards consumers.
The case, titled Akshay Vijay Loke versus Ekart Logistics and others, was brought before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Central Mumbai. The commission, led by President Vandana S Mishra along with members Shraddha J Bahirat and Kamlesh R Bhandarkar, delivered a verdict that has caught the attention of online consumers and legal experts alike.
“Though Complainant is refunded the cost of phone that does not absolve Flipkart from its labiality. A Customer who had spent time, energy and money to buy an online product is not interested in refund but in the delivery of product he bought,”
the Commission stated.The dispute began when Akshay Vijay Loke, the complainant, purchased an iPhone for Rs.39,628 (after discounts) from Flipkart on July 10, 2022. The product was scheduled for delivery by July 12. However, complications arose when, on July 18, Loke received a notification from Flipkart stating that his order had been cancelled. Upon contacting customer support, he was informed that the order was cancelled due to multiple failed delivery attempts.
Contrary to Flipkart’s claims, Loke asserted that the Ekart delivery executive made only one attempt on July 13, during which time only Loke’s father was present at home. Although Loke’s father requested the delivery to be rescheduled for the evening, the executive never returned, leading to an unnecessary day off work for Loke in anticipation of the delivery that never happened.
The consumer forum, after reviewing the case, stated,
“You cannot escape your obligations by merely refunding the amount.”
The panel emphasized that a customer’s time, energy, and money spent in anticipation of a product cannot be overlooked simply because a refund was issued. The forum’s decision reflects a broader message to online retailers about the importance of fulfilling their service promises and respecting consumer rights.
The forum’s findings were particularly critical of Flipkart’s role in the transaction. Despite Flipkart’s defense that it acts merely as an intermediary between the seller and buyer, the commission noted that all communications regarding the order were handled by Flipkart, and there was no directive for Loke to contact the seller directly. Moreover, the commission highlighted the lack of evidence provided by Flipkart to substantiate its claim of being just an intermediary and not responsible for the transaction’s fulfillment.
“If according to the Flipkart or the so called third party seller the Complainant was not available to deliver the product, why they asked him to place fresh order after canceling his order? This adds weight to the Complainant’s case that the cost of the said product increased by approximately ₹7,000 and hence his order was cancelled and he was asked to place fresh order,”
the Commission observed.
The judgment pointed out that Flipkart’s terms and conditions did not account for unilateral order cancellations after receiving full payment, nor did they specify the number of delivery attempts before an order is cancelled. The absence of any documentation proving the existence of “International Value Retail Private Limited” (the supposed third-party seller) further weakened Flipkart’s position.
The Commission added,
“It also doesn’t provide for how many maximum delivery attempts will be made after which the order will be cancelled. There is no proof of existence of the “International Value Retail Private Limited” (third party seller) or the transaction with the said seller is placed on record by Flipkart to prove that they were only intermediary and had no role to play in the entire transaction.”
In conclusion, the consumer court’s decision to fine Flipkart Rs.13,000 serves as a significant reminder of the legal obligations of e-commerce platforms towards their customers. This case not only highlights the challenges consumers face in online transactions but also sets a precedent for how such disputes are addressed, reinforcing the rights of consumers in the digital age.
Also Read- Abhimanyu Murder Case: Court Receives Copies Of Missing Documents Amid Trial (lawchakra.in)
