The Consumer Forum penalized Flipkart for providing a different brand’s product as a replacement. Flipkart’s argument that it is merely an intermediary and not responsible for service deficiencies was rejected. The Forum emphasized Flipkart’s liability in ensuring proper service and product delivery to consumers.
Bengaluru: A Consumer Court in Bengaluru recently directed Flipkart Internet Private Limited to refund approximately Rs.13,799 to a customer for delivering a different product as a replacement for the item initially ordered.
The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission also ordered the e-commerce platform to pay Rs.10,000 in compensation and litigation costs to 80-year-old Purnachandra Thoudam for the mental distress he experienced.
The Commission, presided over by Vijaykumar P Pawale, along with Members V Anuradha and Renukadevi Deshpande, dismissed Flipkart’s argument that it was merely an intermediary between the customer and the seller.
The Consumer Court stated,
“We are of the considered view that OP No. 1 cannot claim to be merely an intermediary and thus not liable for any deficiency in services caused to the complainant,”
In June 2023, Thoudam ordered a treadmill from Flipkart. However, the technician who came to assemble and install it found defects, leading to its return.
Initially, the seller declined the return request, but Flipkart eventually agreed to replace the product. The replacement delivered the following month, but no technician sent to assemble it, despite Flipkart’s assurances.
When the complainant attempted to install the treadmill himself, he discovered that the replacement product was from a different company and sold by a different seller.
The 80-year-old then filed a complaint with the Consumer Court, alleging that Flipkart and the sellers intended to defraud and cheat him by selling defective goods.
In response, Flipkart argued that it could not be held liable as it merely a marketplace and intermediary. It also referenced the website’s terms and conditions, stating that the contract of sale solely between the buyer and the seller.
Read Also: Flipkart Fined Rs.13,000 by Consumer Court for Unjust iPhone Order Cancellation
The Consumer Forum found sufficient documentary evidence proving that Flipkart failed to deliver the product originally ordered by the complainant.
As a result, the Court ruled in favour of the complainant, ordering the e-commerce company to refund the amount and compensate the customer.
Advocate Rakesh SN represented the complainant.
Advocate B Pramod represented Flipkart.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
