E-commerce giant Flipkart has been directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai to compensate a customer with ₹10,000 for the mental harassment and inconvenience caused after the cancellation of his iPhone order. The commission ruled that Flipkart’s cancellation was done intentionally to generate additional profit, constituting a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
The incident occurred when a customer from Mumbai’s Dadar ordered an Apple iPhone from Flipkart on July 10, 2022, and made a payment of ₹39,628 using his credit card. The delivery was expected on July 12, but on the sixth day, the customer received an SMS stating that the order had been canceled. Flipkart claimed that their delivery personnel had made multiple unsuccessful attempts to deliver the product, resulting in the cancellation.
The customer argued that the cancellation not only led to financial loss but also caused mental harassment and made him vulnerable to online fraud. The complainant also named Flipkart’s delivery partner, Ekart Logistics, in the complaint. However, the commission clarified that there was no consumer and service provider relationship between the complainant and the logistics firm.
Flipkart defended itself by asserting that it functions solely as an intermediary platform, with the products being sold and supplied by independent third-party sellers. The company insisted that it had no role in the transaction between the complainant and the seller, which in this case was International Value Retail Private Limited.
While the customer received a refund, the commission determined that compensation was necessary for the mental agony suffered due to the unilateral cancellation. Flipkart was ordered to pay ₹10,000 as redressal.
This case sheds light on the importance of ensuring transparent and fair practices in e-commerce platforms. Customers rely on the reputation and reliability of these platforms, and any deceptive measures can lead to distrust and inconvenience for the consumers.
FAQ:
1. What was Flipkart directed to do by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai?
Flipkart was directed to compensate a customer with ₹10,000 for the mental harassment and inconvenience caused after the cancellation of his iPhone order.
2. Why was Flipkart’s cancellation considered a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice?
The commission ruled that Flipkart’s cancellation was done intentionally to generate additional profit, which constituted a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
3. What was the reason for the cancellation of the iPhone order?
Flipkart claimed that their delivery personnel had made multiple unsuccessful attempts to deliver the product, resulting in the cancellation.
4. Who did the customer name in the complaint besides Flipkart?
The customer named Flipkart’s delivery partner, Ekart Logistics, in the complaint. However, the commission clarified that there was no consumer and service provider relationship between the complainant and the logistics firm.
5. What was Flipkart’s defense in this case?
Flipkart defended itself by stating that it functions solely as an intermediary platform, with the products being sold and supplied by independent third-party sellers. The company insisted that it had no role in the transaction between the complainant and the seller.
Definitions:
1. Deficiency in service: Refers to a situation where a service provider fails to meet the expected standards or obligations of the services they offer.
2. Unfair trade practice: Refers to any deceptive, fraudulent, or unethical conduct by a business that gives them an unfair advantage over their competitors and harms consumers.
Suggested Related Links:
1. Flipkart
2. Apple
3. Consumer Complaints