DCDRC holds Flipkart and Seller Liable For Deficiency In Services For Failing To Deliver Product

DCDRC holds Flipkart and Seller Liable For Deficiency In Services For Failing To Deliver Product

Orders to pay a 9 percent per annum interest rate on the refund amount and a compensation of Rs.5,000 to the complainant

The Panchkula, Punjab bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Flipkart and its seller liable for deficiency in services for failure to deliver the product and refunding money four months after filing the complaint.

The bench comprising Satpal (President), Dr. Sushma Garg (Member), and Dr. Barhm Prakash Yadav (Member) directed it to pay the interest rate of four months on the refund amount and a compensation of Rs.5,000 to the complainant.

An individual, Kamal Rathi (complainant) placed an order on the website of Flipkart Internet Private Limited for a wooden dining set for Rs.16,057.

Having waited for a few days, when the dining set was not delivered, he contacted Flipkart about the delivery. He was advised to wait for an additional 24 hours and was informed about the option to cancel the order if necessary.

The complainant contended that the intended purpose of the purchase was to gift the dining set to his mother-in-law. However, even after the 24 hour wait, the order was not delivered. The complainant made several inquiries with Flipkart, but no satisfactory response was provided.

Feeling aggrieved, Rathi approached the DCDRC and filed a consumer complaint against Flipkart and the seller.

After around four months of that, he received the refund, informing him that his order was canceled. The complainant demanded compensation for the mental distress and harassment incurred by him. However, since Flipkart and its seller did not appear before the District Commission, they proceeded against the ex-parte.

The DCRDC observed that during communication with the customer support representatives of Flipkart, they acknowledged the non-delivery and expressed apologies for the inconvenience faced by the complainant. The bench held that Flipkart failed to fulfill its obligation of delivering the dining set despite receiving the payment. Thus, it held the online platform liable for deficiency in services for non-delivery of the product and for canceling the order without the complainant’s consent.

The District Commission noted that though the actual amount was refunded to the complainant, it slapped Flipkart with a penalty of 9 percent per annum interest rate for four months. It further ordered Flipkart and its seller to pay the complainant Rs.5,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and litigation charges.