The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission levied a Rs 30,000 fine on Flipkart, OnePlus, and a mobile phone retailer for marketing a pre-owned phone as a new device. The Commission additionally determined that the customer was charged twice for “handling fees,” a practice deemed unreasonable and unfair by the Commission.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Punjab and Haryana: The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently issued a Rs 30,000 fine against Flipkart, OnePlus, and a mobile phone retailer for misrepresenting a used phone as new. In addition to the fine, the commission ordered a full refund of the amount paid for the used phone to the complainant.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Upholds ED’s Authority to Summon Tamil Nadu District Collectors
Presiding Member Padma Pandey and Member Preetinder Singh noted that the phone’s service record indicated activation approximately four months before the complainant’s purchase.
“The record indicated that the item in question was received from Opposite Party No.1 (Flipkart) as a brand new handset on 17.07.2023, while the service record dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure C-3) clearly shows that according to the online mobile data system of the service centre, the product was activated on 02.03.2023,”
-the Commission stated.
The Commission addressed a complaint by Ashwani Chawla, who had ordered a new OnePlus 11R 5G from Flipkart on July 17, 2023, through a seller named Bathla Teletech.
Following a few days of use, the complainant encountered significant issues with the phone, prompting a visit to a OnePlus service center. There, it was discovered that the phone had been activated four months prior to the complainant’s purchase.
The complainant, after being redirected to the manufacturer (OnePlus), seller (Bathla Teletech), and online marketplace (Flipkart) by the service centre, received no responses and ultimately purchased a new phone, prompting him to approach the Commission.
The Commission determined that the phone sold to the complainant was indeed old and used, and criticized the opposite parties (Flipkart, OnePlus, and the retailer) for their apparent indifference to resolving the issue.
“The evidence on record strongly suggests that the Complainant had to go through great lengths to seek a remedy, but to no avail. The actions of the Opposite Parties demonstrate their lack of concern for customer grievance resolution and instead focus solely on profit-making through deceiving the public and neglecting their complaints,”
-the order stated.
The complainant also pointed out that he received two invoices for the same transaction. In addition to the phone’s cost, the second bill charged Rs 49 as “handling fees.”
The Commission deemed the second invoice unreasonable, as shipping and handling charges were already included in the first invoice. This, the Commission determined, constituted an unfair trade practice.
Furthermore, the Commission categorized this as a form of ‘dark patterns’ practice, in accordance with Section 2(1)(e) of the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023. It stressed that assuring the delivery of a new product but failing to fulfill the responsibility of replacement or refunding also qualified as a ‘dark patterns’ practice.
Regarding Flipkart’s accountability, the Commission asserted that once it permitted the third-party seller to operate on its platform, it could not shirk its responsibility.
ALSO READ: “Can’t be Tolerated”: Supreme Court Demands Evidence from Patanjali in ‘False’ Ads Case
Consequently, the Commission instructed the opposite parties to refund Rs 40,941 for the mobile phone and the additional Rs 49 charged for handling.
They were also directed to jointly and severally pay Rs 10,000 to the complainant for deficient service, unfair trade practice, and harassment, another Rs 10,000 for legal expenses, as well as Rs 10,000 to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission.
Additionally, the opposite parties were ordered to immediately cease the practice of issuing two separate invoices for a single transaction under the guise of a handling fee and refrain from engaging in such unfair contracts, unfair trade practices, and ‘dark patterns’ practices.
CASE TITLE:
Ashwani Chawla v. Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd and Ors.
Read/Download Order
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
