Adilabad Consumer Commission Holds Flipkart Liable For Wrong Product Delivery
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Adilabad comprising Sri Jabez Samuel (President), Smt. Ch. Sandhya Reddy (Member) and Sri R. Narayan Reddy (Member), held Flipkart Internet Private Limited and Consulting Rooms Private Limited liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after a consumer who ordered a Qubo Q600 Air Purifier received a Qubo Q500 model...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Adilabad comprising Sri Jabez Samuel (President), Smt. Ch. Sandhya Reddy (Member) and Sri R. Narayan Reddy (Member), held Flipkart Internet Private Limited and Consulting Rooms Private Limited liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after a consumer who ordered a Qubo Q600 Air Purifier received a Qubo Q500 model instead.
The Commission observed that the opposite parties failed to exercise due diligence in redressing the grievance and caused mental agony to the complainant, who had purchased the product due to allergy and dust sensitivity during the Diwali season.
Facts
The complainant purchased a “Qubo Q600” Air Purifier through Flipkart's online marketplace on October 2, 2025, for Rs.10,399. After a debit card discount of Rs.2,100 and an additional charge of Rs.99 towards Flipkart Protect Promise, the net payable amount came to Rs.8,398.
Although the product reached the local delivery hub on October 5, it was delivered only on October 16 under Flipkart's Open Box Delivery (OBD) service.
During the delivery itself he noticed that the product supplied was a “Qubo Q500” model instead of the Q600 model ordered by him. He requested the delivery personnel to mark the delivery as failed under the OBD policy, but the request was refused on the ground that a replacement could only be raised after acceptance of delivery.
After delivery the complainant discovered that the product listing page had been altered to display the Q500 model instead of the Q600 model originally purchased. Although Flipkart initially approved a replacement request, it later cancelled the same, allegedly citing that the product was “out of stock”, while representatives had orally acknowledged the listing alteration during grievance calls.
Aggrieved by the wrong delivery and failure to resolve the grievance, the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission
Despite service of notice, both opposite parties failed to appear before the Commission and were proceeded ex parte.
Observations & Decision
The Commission noted that the complainant had placed on record documentary evidence including invoices, email correspondence, call summaries and transcripts of conversations with Flipkart representatives. It observed that despite the complainant immediately raising the issue regarding wrong delivery, the opposite parties failed to properly redress the grievance or provide an effective replacement.
The Commission observed that the communications and documents produced by the complainant clearly reflected the agony suffered by him. It further took note of the complainant's submission that the air purifier had been purchased due to medical necessity arising from allergy and dust sensitivity during the Diwali period when pollution levels were severe.
The Commission held that the conduct of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It further observed that the opposite parties failed to exercise due diligence and neglected timely grievance redressal.
Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund ₹8,398 with interest at 12% per annum. It further awarded ₹1,51,000 as compensation and ₹7,000 towards litigation costs, directing compliance within 45 days.
Case Title: Rathod Swasthik v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 187/2025