Supplying Product With Lesser Quantity Than Advertised Amounts To Defect, Unfair Trade Practice: Kollam District Commission
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam, comprising Smt. S.K. Sreela (President) and Sri. Stanly Harold (Member), has held that supplying goods with lesser quantity than advertised amounts to a “defect” and constitutes misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
In the present case, the Commission found the seller, Lakshmi Enterprises, liable for supplying underweight bean bag grains and granted relief to the complainant. It further observed that while an e-commerce platform acts as an intermediary, it cannot be completely absolved of responsibility when grievances are repeatedly brought to its notice.
Facts
The complainant, a law student, purchased bean bag grains through Flipkart on 07.09.2024, advertised as weighing 2 kg. However, upon delivery on 14.09.2024, the product weighed only 1.540 kg.
Upon complaint, a replacement delivered on 23.09.2024 weighed 1.470 kg. A second replacement delivered on 04.10.2024 weighed 1.680 kg. Despite repeated complaints and replacements, the complainant did not receive the product with the promised weight.
The complainant stated that he purchased the product for ergonomic support following injuries sustained in an accident and that the repeated supply of underweight goods caused inconvenience, physical discomfort, and mental distress.
Aggrieved thereby, the complainant filed the present consumer complaint alleging defect in goods and unfair trade practice.
Arguments by Opposite Parties
The 1st opposite party (Flipkart) contended that it is merely an intermediary facilitating transactions between buyers and independent sellers and does not verify product specifications. It submitted that any discrepancy in weight is attributable solely to the seller.
It further stated that it facilitated replacements as per platform policies and that delays, if any, were due to third-party logistics. It also argued that contractual obligations regarding quality and quantity exist only between the buyer and the seller.
The 2nd opposite party (Lakshmi Enterprises) remained absent and was set ex parte.
Observations of the Commission
The Commission noted that the complainant's affidavit and documentary evidence, including invoice and photographs showing reduced weight, remained unchallenged.
It held that under Section 2(10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, defect includes shortcoming in quantity, and supplying a product of lesser weight than advertised clearly amounts to a defect.
The Commission further held that such misrepresentation constitutes misleading advertisement and an unfair trade practice.
While acknowledging Flipkart's role as an intermediary, the Commission observed that it cannot be completely absolved of responsibility when grievances are repeatedly raised through its platform. However, the primary liability for product specifications rests with the seller.
Decision
The Commission allowed the complaint and directed:
• The 2nd opposite party to refund ₹764/- to the complainant
• The 2nd opposite party to pay ₹10,000/- as compensation
• Opposite parties 1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay ₹10,000/- as costs
• Payment to be made within 45 days, failing which 9% interest applies
Case Details
Case Title: Jithin M Basheer v. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 656/2024