LI Network
Published on: January 14, 2024 at 10:40 IST
In a recent ruling, the Cuttack District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, held Flipkart Internet Private Limited responsible for deficient service.
The commission, consisting of President Sri Debasish Nayak and Member Sri Sibananda Mohanty, found Flipkart at fault for not resolving the customer’s concerns regarding a defective Cadbury’s Bournvita Chocolate Health Drink Pouch.
Dismissing Flipkart’s claim as a mere online platform facilitator, the commission emphasized the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, outlining the responsibilities of e-commerce platforms in ensuring genuine transactions and product quality.
Brief Overview:
Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath, the complainant, purchased a packet of Cadbury’s Bournvita Chocolate health drink pouch for Rs. 1818 from Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. Upon receiving the product, the complainant discovered it was damaged, of a different size, and lacked a date label. Despite the complainant’s attempts to communicate the issue, Flipkart did not respond. The complainant issued a legal notice, but it also went unanswered. Consequently, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the Cuttack District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Commission’s Observations:
The commission noted that the complainant received a damaged product of a different size, and despite attempts to communicate, Flipkart did not respond.
The commission dismissed Flipkart’s argument as a mere online platform facilitator, citing the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which outlines the duties of e-commerce platforms to ensure genuine transactions and product quality. Consequently, the commission held Flipkart accountable for deficient service and unfair trade practices.
Commission’s Decision:
As a result of the ruling, the commission directed Flipkart to refund the complainant the cost of the product (Rs. 1818) along with interest at a rate of 12% per annum from April 22, 2023, until the total amount is quantified.
Additionally, Flipkart was instructed to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000 to the complainant for mental agony and harassment, along with an additional sum of Rs. 10,000 towards the complainant’s litigation costs.
