Intermediaries Liable For Defective Products, North-East Delhi Commission Orders Flipkart And Lenovo To Refund Phone Cost, Pay 15k For Mental Agony And 5k For Litigation Costs

Brief Facts of the Case:

Sh. Vipin Bharti (“Complainant”) purchased a Lenovo phone from Flipkart on 17.07.17. The mobile phone experienced severe network coverage issues from the date of purchase. The complainant lodged multiple complaints with Flipkart and engineers were sent to assess the issue. The engineers confirmed the network coverage problem and the complainant received a replacement mobile, which, however, exhibited the same issue. The complainant escalated the matter further to Flipkart, who advised him to visit the service centre of Lenovo. Despite several visits to the service centre, the issue was not resolved. The complainant also reached out to the manufacturer, but the problem persisted. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”).

Flipkart contended that it is not the seller of products but an online intermediary connecting buyers and third-party sellers. It claimed that any warranties, assurances, or after-sale services were the responsibility of the respective sellers, not Flipkart. It asserted that it was not directly responsible for the complainant's grievance and had no privity of contract with him.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission reviewed the case, considering the roles and responsibilities of online intermediaries. The District Commission referred the case of Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gopal Krishan, First Appeal No.27 of 2017 where the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) held that online platforms like Amazon, even if serving as an intermediary, must ensure the quality of goods sold on their platform. The District Commission noted that agents acting as intermediaries should guarantee product quality and could be held accountable for losses incurred by purchasers due to defects in products sold through their platform. Further, the District Commission referred Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dinesh & Ors., First Appeal No. 21 of 2018 where NCDRC upheld that online platform, despite being intermediaries, have a responsibility to ensure the quality of products sold through their platform. In light of relevant legal precedents, it determined that Intermediaries like Flipkart have a certain responsibility in ensuring product quality within their platform. The District Commission noted that agents of intermediaries had an obligation to uphold the standard of goods sold through their platforms and could be held liable for defects or losses incurred by purchasers.

Consequently, the District Commission ruled in favour of the complainant and ordered Lenovo and Flipkart to reimburse the complainant Rs. 9,999, the cost of the mobile phone, along with 6% annual interest from the complaint filing date until recovery. Both Lenovo and Flipkart were directed to jointly and severally compensate the complainant with Rs. 15,000 for mental distress and Rs. 5,000 for litigation expenses.

Case: Vipin Bharti vs. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd

Case No.: CC/47/2019

Advocate for the Complainant: None

Advocate for the Respondent: None

Click Here To R

ead/Download Order