The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Additional DCF, Mumbai Suburban, observed that Flipkart’s failure to investigate the complaint, recover the wrongly delivered parcel, provide a replacement or refund, and repeatedly close the complaint without offering effective relief amounted to a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
The order was passed by Commission President Pradeep G Kadu and Member Gauri M Kapse.
The complaint filed against Apple India was dismissed after the commission ruled that the dispute related to non-delivery of the ordered phone and not any defect in an Apple product.
The complainant, Anil Mutalik, approached the consumer commission in 2023. On April 22, 2023, Mutalik purchased an Apple iPhone 14 Pro, 128 GB, from Flipkart for Rs 1.11 lakh under a no-cost EMI scheme. Along with the phone, he also ordered an Apple charger and a phone cover.
While the charger and phone cover were delivered, the package containing the iPhone, delivered on April 23, 2023, allegedly contained beard growth oil and packing material instead. The commission examined evidence submitted by Mutalik, including invoices, photographs, and customer support screenshots.
According to the complaint, Mutalik immediately reported the issue to Flipkart customer support through the mobile application and submitted photographs of the package and invoice. He stated that repeated complaints submitted on April 23, May 3, May 4, May 9, and May 21, 2023, did not result in any refund or replacement.
The complaint was allegedly marked as “resolved” without providing relief and was later rejected on the ground that valid identity proof had not been submitted within 48 hours.
The commission noted that notices were served to all opposite parties. Flipkart remained absent despite receiving notice, resulting in ex parte proceedings against the company. International Value Retail appeared before the commission but failed to submit a written statement within the prescribed period.
Apple India appeared and contested the complaint, arguing that the dispute concerned the alleged wrong delivery by Flipkart and the seller, and that Apple India had no involvement in the sale, packaging, dispatch, or delivery process.
The commission held that Flipkart, being the e-commerce platform responsible for facilitating the transaction, payment, shipment, delivery, and grievance redressal process, could not avoid responsibility after the wrong delivery was reported by the consumer.
The order stated that an e-commerce entity cannot distance itself from a transaction after facilitating the sale, particularly when a consumer immediately reports that an entirely different product has been delivered.
Regarding the seller’s responsibility, the commission held that International Value Retail had a contractual and statutory obligation to ensure delivery of the ordered product.
The commission stated that the failure of Opposite Party No. 2, International Value Retail, to deliver the contracted product and resolve the grievance despite repeated requests clearly established deficiency in service.
Apple India was relieved of liability after the commission found no evidence linking the company to the disputed delivery. The commission observed that merely manufacturing the product intended to be purchased does not make the manufacturer liable when the product was never delivered to the consumer.
The order reinforces the responsibility of online marketplaces and sellers to ensure accurate delivery and effective grievance resolution, highlighting that consumers cannot be left without remedy when a transaction fails due to delivery-related deficiencies.
About The Author
Comment List