Cuttack District Commission Holds Flipkart Liable For Delivering Defective Cadbury Bourn Vita Product And Failing To Resolve Complainant's Concerns

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha) bench comprising Sri Debasish Nayak (President) and Sri Sibananda Mohanty (Member) held Flipkart Internet Private Limited liable for deficiency in service. Flipkart failed to resolve the Complainant's concerns, who received a defective Cadbury's Bourn Vita Chocolate Health Drink Pouch, of a different size. The District Commission dismissed Flipkart's argument that it is a mere online platform facilitator by highlighting that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 outlines the duties of e-commerce platforms, emphasizing the need for genuine transactions and product supervision.

Brief Facts:

Dr Sunil Kumar Rath (“Complainant”) purchased a packet of Cadbury's Bournvita Chocolate health drink pouch for Rs. 1818/- from Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. (“Flipkart”). Upon receiving the product, the Complainant discovered it was damaged, of a different size, and lacked a date label. The Complainant brought this to the attention of Flipkart. Flipkart didn't reply to the Complainant's communication. Subsequently, the Complainant issued a legal notice, and but didn't receive a reply. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack, Odisha (“District Commission”).

In response, Flipkart asserted that it merely functions as an intermediary, providing an electronic platform to facilitate sales transactions between buyers and sellers. According to Flipkart, it didn't have any involvement in the specific product sold and received in this case. 

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Complainant received a damaged product of a different size. Despite the Complainant's attempts to communicate the issue, Flipkart didn't reply to the Complainant. The District Commission dismissed Flipkart's argument that it is a mere online platform facilitator by highlighting that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 outlines the duties of e-commerce platforms, emphasizing the need for genuine transactions and product supervision. Therefore, the District Commission held Flipkart liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Flipkart to refund the Complainant the cost of the product, i.e., Rs. 1818/-, along with interest at a rate of 12% per annum from April 22, 2023, until the total amount is quantified. Additionally, Flipkart was instructed to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony and harassment, along with a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the Complainant's litigation costs. 

Case Title: Dr Sunil Kumar Rath vs Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: C.C. No. 156/2023

Advocate for the Complainant: Complainant-in-person

Advocate for the Respondent: None

Click Here To Read/Download Order