Bangalore District Commission Holds Flipkart Liable For Failure To Replace Defective Washing Machine Damaged In Transit
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban, Karnataka bench comprising Sri Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), Smt. V. Anuradha (Member) and Kum. Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held Flipkart liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failure to replace a washing machine which was damaged in transit. Brief Facts: The...
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban, Karnataka bench comprising Sri Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), Smt. V. Anuradha (Member) and Kum. Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held Flipkart liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failure to replace a washing machine which was damaged in transit.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant placed an order for a "BOSCH 6.5 kg Drive Motor, Anti Tangle, Anti Vibration Fully Automatic Front Load" Washing Machine from the Flipkart website and paid Rs. 22,990/-. The product was delivered after a few days. However, due to the Complainant's incapacitation from knee surgery, he was unable to inspect the product upon delivery. Taking advantage of this situation, the delivery executive, upon receiving the OTP from the Complainant, left the vicinity without opening the box or displaying the product.
On a subsequent day, before the scheduled technician visit, the Complainant, assisted by a friend, opened the box to find a significant dent on the metal body and the front panel detached from the washing machine. Promptly, the Complainant contacted Flipkart's customer care, initiating a complaint and requesting a replacement. The Flipkart technician inspected the product confirmed the damage and prepared a job sheet for replacement.
Despite continuous follow-ups by the Complainant, Flipkart's customer service responded stating that there were few system errors and later, told him that the return and replacement period had lapsed as per their policy. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Flipkart. Flipkart didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that Flipkart's job sheet stated that the damage to the washing machine occurred during transit. Furthermore, it noted that the Complainant promptly requested a replacement of the damaged product on the same day the damage was discovered. However, Flipkart failed to adhere to the prescribed timeframe for replacement as stipulated in its policy. By denying the replacement based on the lapsed validity period, the District Commission held that Flipkart was liable for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
Consequently, the District Commission directed Flipkart to refund Rs. 22,990/- to the Complainant, after receiving back the damaged product. Additionally, the District Commission directed Flipkart to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and pay Rs. 2,000/- for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
Case Title: Adithya Chaturvedi vs Flipkart Internet Pvt. Limited