Chandigarh District Commission Directs Google India, B2X Service Solutions, And Flipkart To Pay Rs. 37,000, Citing Deficiency In Service And Unfair Trade Practices

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh consisting of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) allowed the complaint filed against Google India Private Limited (Google), B2X Service Solutions India Private Limited. (B2X Service Solutions) and Flipkart Internet Private Limited (Flipkart) and held them liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The Commission ordered Google, B2X Services Solutions, and Flipkart to refund ₹27,003/- to the complainant along with 9% per annum interest. Additionally, it instructed to pay ₹5000/- as compensation for causing mental distress and another ₹5000/- to cover the complainant's litigation costs. Brief Facts of the Case: The Complainant purchased a Google Pixel 4A mobile phone from Flipkart. Unfortunately, the phone had initial malfunctions that prompted him to file a complaint. Google's support team acknowledged the problem and successfully resolved it. However, after a week, a new issue arose with the proximity sensor, which worsened over time. Despite reaching out to the Google support team, specifically B2X Service Solutions, the problem persisted and remained unresolved. Subsequently, a technician from Google's support team visited the complainant, who demonstrated the various issues with the phone. B2X Service Solutions took the phone for assessment but couldn't fix the problems, leading them to return the device to the complainant and close the case. A Google support technician informed him that the phone's screen had been replaced, but no action was taken regarding the proximity sensor issue, nor was the sensor replaced. Despite sending multiple emails to both Google and B2X, there was no meaningful response to address the ongoing complaint. The Google support team declined to replace the faulty phone with a new one or provide a refund, starting from the day the complainant received the device. Consequently, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Commission. Contentions of the Opposite Parties: Google argued that it does not produce or supply the Google Pixel mobile phone. And clarified that the manufacturing is carried out by Google LLC, a company established under the laws of the United States of America. Google contended that it is neither an essential nor a proper party to be involved in the proceedings. Therefore, the complaint should be rejected due to the absence of relevant parties. Flipkart argued that it is not the vendor of the product in question. It asserted that the tax invoice provided by the complainant proves the same. Flipkart identified itself as an online intermediary that offers a shared platform for buyers and independent third-party sellers. Flipkart also pointed out that the complainant had initially reached out to the manufacturer, Google, to address the alleged issue. The complainant had already utilized the manufacturer's authorized service center for repairing the product. Furthermore, Flipkart emphasized that its actions are governed by the terms of use laid out on its platform. These terms clearly establish that the sales contract exists solely between the buyer and the seller, with Flipkart not being a party to it. Observations of the Commission: The Chandigarh District Commission allowed the complaint and observed that the new mobile phone from a prominent brand, Google, exhibited recurring issues from the start. The Commission pointed out that Google cannot evade its responsibility by stating that it operates as a wholly owned subsidiary of Google LLC and is a non-exclusive reseller of advertising space under the Google LLC 'Ads' program in India since Google promotes its products in India through social platforms, it attracts the general public's attention and trust, encouraging them to purchase based on the brand's reputation. The Commission, further, highlighted that the complainant used Flipkart's platform with faith in its reputation, investing his hard-earned money in a product endorsed by Flipkart. Therefore, the act of selling a substandard product, not providing adequate after-sale services, and forcing the complainant into unnecessary litigation demonstrated the opposite parties' deficiency in services and engagement in unfair trade practices. In conclusion, the Commission ordered Google, B2X Solution Services, and Flipkart to refund ₹27,003/- to the complainant along with 9% per annum interest. Additionally, they were instructed to pay ₹5000/- as compensation for causing mental distress and another ₹5000/- to cover the complainant's litigation costs. Case Title: Tarun Gupta vs. Google India Private Limited. Click Here To Read/Download Order

Chandigarh District Commission Directs Google India, B2X Service Solutions, And Flipkart To Pay Rs. 37,000, Citing Deficiency In Service And Unfair Trade Practices

Sachika Vij

Tags