Delhi Consumer Court orders Flipkart to pay Rs 10K to a customer for harassment after cancelling multiple confirmed orders without reason, rejecting the e-commerce giant’s intermediary defence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Delhi, has directed Flipkart Internet Private Limited to pay Rs 10,000 to a customer after repeatedly cancelling over 16 confirmed orders without providing valid reasons.
The case was heard by Commission President Monika A. Srivastava and Member Kiran Kaushal, following a complaint filed by Utkarsh Srivastava, a regular Flipkart customer. Srivastava sought compensation for mental agony, harassment, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act.
The Dispute
The issue arose when Srivastava noticed that multiple confirmed orders placed during various sale events, including tech gadgets, shoes, and a laptop, were abruptly cancelled by Flipkart. These cancellations occurred despite payment being made and confirmation being received.
Srivastava alleged that Flipkart’s customer care representatives refused to disclose their full names, provide the grievance officer’s contact details, or offer any valid explanation for the cancellations. He further stated that his request for a physical inspection of an open box laptop delivery was denied before the order was eventually cancelled.
Frustrated with the lack of resolution through Flipkart’s official channels, Srivastava approached the South Delhi Consumer Forum with documentary evidence, including order confirmations, cancellation emails, screenshots, and complaint records.
Flipkart’s Defense
Flipkart argued that it operates solely as an “intermediary” under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, facilitating transactions between independent sellers and customers. As such, it claimed it had no responsibility for product cancellations, which were at the sellers’ discretion.
Commission’s Observation
The Commission rejected Flipkart’s intermediary defence, noting.
“Flipkart cannot wash its hands of responsibility merely by stating that it is an intermediary and has no role to play in the buying and selling of products.”
It emphasised that:
- Flipkart’s platform directly processes payments from customers.
- Users transact through its marketplace, and Flipkart plays an active role in facilitating sales.
- Flipkart charges fees from sellers, meaning it has a vested commercial interest in the transactions.
The Forum concluded that unilateral order cancellations without valid reasons amount to a deficiency in service and harassment of the customer.
The forum stated
“This Commission therefore directs the OP to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 as compensation for the harassment caused to the complainant within three months from the date of pronouncement of this order, failing which the OP would be liable to pay interest at 6 percent per annum on the said amount. The complainant is not entitled to any other relief.”
Case Title:
Utkarsh Srivastava vs Flipkart Internet Private Limited
Case No.49/2024
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Consumer Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
