Ernakulam District Commission Holds M/S Flipkart Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant purchased a Smart TV from Flipkart with a specified RAM and memory; however, the TV had lower specifications upon delivery. Despite a one-year warranty, a web-like crack was discovered on the panel, and upon inquiry, Flipkart claimed no warranty. The complainant alleged manufacturing defects, asserting a deficiency in service. The complainant emphasized that the quick damage resulted from a panel defect, indicating a broader manufacturing issue with the Smart TV. Flipkart responded to the complainant that the panel wasn't covered under the warranty, constituting a service shortfall.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

It was argued that the complaint is invalid and should be dismissed as it concerns alleged manufacturing defects in a purchased product. Flipkart contended that it is neither the manufacturer nor the authorized service center but a third party registered as a seller and hence was not liable for any defects in the product purchased. The party cited the precedents in Hindustan Motor Ltd. and another Vs. N. Sivakumar & Abhinandam Vs. Ajith Kumar Verma and Ors. to elucidated that the dealer/seller/retailers cannot be held liable for defects in the goods/products.

Observations by the Commission

The commission held that according to the Consumer Protection Act and the E-commerce Rules 2020 specifically Rules 5(2) Rules 7(3), e-commerce entities are obligated to ensure accuracy in the descriptions, images, and content related to goods or services on their platform. The rules specify that advertisements must align with the actual characteristics and conditions of goods or services. Therefore, the arguments presented by the opposing party, which contradict these regulations, cannot be considered valid. The complainant received a TV with lower specifications than indicated on the box, and it malfunctioned shortly after purchase. This discrepancy in specifications and the subsequent malfunction clearly demonstrate unfair trade practices and a deficiency in service.

The Commission held Flipkart and the manufactured liable for deficiency and directed them to refund the amount spent on the purchase of the product along with a payment of Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental distress and Rs 4,000 towards the cost of proceedings.

Counsel for the Opposite Party: Adv. N.S. Ajay

Case Title: Sreekumar Vs. M/s Flipkart & Ors.

Case Number: C.C. No.- 297/2019

Click Here To Read/Download The Order