Shimla District Commission Holds Flipkart And Ekart Logistics Liable For Delivering Damaged Product And Failing To Initiate Refund

Brief Facts:

The Complainant placed an order for 10 sets of Spectra Trident Unruled A-4 Printer Papers from Flipkart, amounting to Rs. 1901/- in total. The expected delivery date, as communicated by Flipkart's supply-chain company, E-Kart was March 16, 2022. On the stated date, the courier was delivered, but upon inspection, the Complainant found all the products to be damaged. Immediately, he raised an online request with Flipkart to return the parcel, which was acknowledged by the company. Despite this, when E-Kart was called by the Complainant to collect the return parcel, E-Kart refused and cancelled the return request. Subsequent efforts to resolve the issue with Flipkart were allegedly met with excuses. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Flipkart and E-Kart.

In response, Flipkart contended that it operates solely as an online marketplace facilitating transactions between independent third-party sellers and buyers. It denied direct involvement in the sale or delivery of products and argued that sellers on its platform independently manage sales and fulfil orders. It argued that any warranty, service assurance, or after-sales support related to products sold on its platform is the responsibility of the respective sellers and not Flipkart itself. It maintained that the contract of sale is strictly between the buyer and the seller, as per the terms listed on the Flipkart platform's Terms of Use.

Similarly, E-Kart argued that its role is limited to delivering products as per the sellers' instructions and collecting payments if applicable under cash-on-delivery terms. It argued that it delivered the products intact and completed its contractual obligations as specified by the seller.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission observed the communications between Flipkart and the Complainant, where Flipkart acknowledged the replacement and refund of the product. This implied that it recognized its obligation towards customer satisfaction. The District Commission held that the failure to act upon these assurances constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on Flipkart's part.

The District Commission further found E-Kart's argument of no privity of contract unconvincing in the context of consumer protection laws, as its obligation was to deliver the product in a satisfactory condition, which it failed to do. Therefore, the District Commission held both Flipkart and E-Kart liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Flipkart and E-Kart jointly and severally to refund Rs. 1901/- to the Complainant along with 9% interest per annum. Additionally, Flipkart and E-Kart were ordered to pay Rs. 3000/- as compensation to the Complainant for mental harassment and agony, and Rs. 2000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.

Case Title: Parav Sharma vs Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd and Anr.

Case Number: 76/2022

Date of Pronouncement: June 13^th, 2024

Click Here To Read Order