Gurdaspur Consumer Commission Holds Flipkart Liable For Delivering Empty Package, Ordered To Refund Rs.3,149 Along With Compensation

Brief Facts

Armaan Bakshi (Complainant) ordered an 'Okami wolf Nomad laptop backpack' via Flipkart's mobile app. When it arrived on July 4, 2022, the packaging was empty, missing the backpack, bill, and warranty card. Immediately after, Armaan reported this incident through Flipkart's app, seeking a refund. Flipkart (Opposite Party) requested Armaan's ID and consent for information usage. Despite complying, refund requests were rejected three times without explanation. The complainant claimed financial loss, mental distress, and inconvenience due to the rejected refund requests. Consequently, he alleged service deficiency and unfair trade practices, seeking a refund of Rs.3,194/- along with compensation.

Arguments by Flipkart

Flipkart argued that it operates as an intermediary connecting buyers and sellers, thereby indicating that they do not have direct involvement in the transaction. They claimed that according to their Terms of Use, the contract of sale exists solely between the buyer and the seller. Flipkart clarified that they do not control or advise on the terms of sale, including prices, delivery, warranties, or after-sales services, as those are agreed upon solely between the buyer and seller. They contended that they are not directly responsible for the condition of the product delivered, as it's the seller's duty to ensure the product's integrity. Flipkart emphasized that refund or return concerns should be addressed by the seller, who wasn't part of the complaint. Flipkart contended that the complaint did not establish any deficiency in their services or unfair trade practices, stating that no dispute existed between the complainant and Flipkart under the Consumer Protection Act.

Observations of the Commission

The Commission acknowledged that the complainant ordered a backpack via Flipkart, which arrived as an empty package. Despite the claims of Flipkart to be an online platform with no role in product supply, evidence showed the payment was received by them. The Commission referred to a case titled "Flipkart Internet Private Limited vs. Arish Juneja" and found that even though Flipkart acts as an intermediary, it becomes responsible once it accepts payment.

While relying on this previous decision the Commission held that Flipkart's refusal to provide a refund constituted a service deficiency on their part. Consequently, the Commission partially allowed the complaint, directing Flipkart to refund Rs.3,149/- along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint. Additionally, they ordered compensation of Rs.1,000/- for mental distress, harassment, and litigation costs.

Case Title: Armaan Bakshi vs. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd.

Counsel for the Complainant: Smt.B.K. Bajwa, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party: Sh.K.K. Attri, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download The Order