Intermediary Platforms Must Display Contact Details And Address Of Sellers, Hisar District Commission Holds Flipkart Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainant ordered a pair of men's shoes priced at Rs. 3,999/- after an online discount, through the Flipkart app. The delivery revealed upon inspection in the presence of the delivery person that the shoes were used, and the right shoe lacked laces. The Complainant immediately requested the delivery person to return the shoes and refund the payment but was directed to lodge a complaint via the toll-free number. Subsequently, despite multiple complaints, including one rejected by Flipkart, the Complainant failed to secure a resolution. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar, Haryana (“District Commission”) against Flipkart and its seller.

In response, Flipkart stated that it operates as an intermediary through its online platform and facilitates transactions between various sellers and buyers across India for diverse products including electronics, apparel, and footwear. It clarified that the product in question, manufactured by Clarks, was sold by an independent third-party seller registered on its platform, and not by itself. It argued that there was no involvement in warranty or delivery responsibilities, as these are managed by individual sellers.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that despite several opportunities, Flipkart failed to provide the correct address of the seller as directed by the Commission, stating that it did not possess this information. According to the guidelines on Foreign Direct Investment dated 29th March 2016, the District Commission held that marketplace platforms like Flipkart are mandated to clearly display the name, address, and contact details of sellers. It held that post-sales activities, including delivery and customer satisfaction, are explicitly the responsibility of the seller.

The District Commission held that Flipkart, in its role as a marketplace facilitator, did not fulfil its duty to provide the correct address of the seller to both the complainant and the Commission. Flipkart also did not substantiate any actions taken to address the Complainant's grievances nor disclose the complaint number or resolution efforts. Moreover, it noted that Flipkart failed to refute material facts presented in the complaint or demonstrate appropriate investigation into the matter. Therefore, the District Commission held Flipkart liable for deficiency in services.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Flipkart to refund Rs. 3,999/- to the Complainant along with 9% per annum interest. Additionally, Flipkart was directed to pay a c compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the Complainant for mental, physical, emotional, and financial distress, and Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs.

Case Title: Umed Kumar vs Flipkart Internet Private Limited and Anr.

Case Number: 806/2020

Date of Decision: 23.5.2024