Mysore District Commission Holds Flipkart Liable For Failure To Honour T&C For Mobile Exchange Offer

Brief Facts:

The Complainant ordered a Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G by exchanging his old mobile phone for a quoted amount of Rs. 2,550/- from Flipkart. However, upon receiving the new phone, he found that only Rs. 1,950/- was deducted from the purchase price for alleged defects in his old phone. The Complainant contended that he provided evidence of the old phone's condition as per the exchange terms but was not compensated accordingly. He pursued a resolution through online correspondence with Flipkart but didn't receive any satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore, Karnataka (“District Commission”) against Flipkart.

In response, Flipkart argued that it operates solely as an intermediary through its platform and facilitates transactions between independent sellers and consumers. It claimed immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 5(1) of the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020, arguing that it cannot be held liable for the actions or disputes arising from transactions conducted between third-party sellers and consumers. Flipkart maintained that the Complainant failed to include the seller in the complaint. Further, Flipkart argued that the Complainant willingly chose to exchange his old phone despite the possibility of a variance in the quoted value based on the device's condition, a condition clearly stated on its website.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission observed from the documents provided by the Complainant that a transaction took place between the Complainant and Flipkart. Therefore, Flipkart's contention that it bears no responsibility towards the Complainant was untenable.

Regarding the exchange offer for the Complainant's old mobile phone, the District Commission noted that Flipkart acknowledged that its advertisement only refers to scratches on the screen, not on the back or edge of the device, when determining the value of the old mobile. Despite this, Flipkart deducted Rs. 600/- from the exchange value, stating a scratch on the back of the mobile.

Moreover, the District Commission noted that when the Complainant provided evidence regarding the conditions, Flipkart failed to appropriately consider this information. Instead, it proceeded with the deduction of Rs. 600/- for the scratch on the back side of the mobile, which was not in line with the terms stated in its advertisement. Additionally, despite the Complainant's communication that he was hearing impaired and unable to communicate via phone calls, Flipkart continued to contact him via phone calls. It noted that Flipkart subsequently closed the matter stating the Complainant's unavailability for calls. Therefore, the District Commission held Flipkart liable for deficiency in service.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Flipkart to pay Rs. 600/- to the Complainant towards the shortfall in the discount for the old mobile. It was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant for deficiency in service and mental agony, and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Case Title: Karthik H.K vs Flipkart Internet Private Ltd.

Case Number: 360/2023

Date of Pronouncement: 16.05.2024