Failure To Deliver Dining Set, Panchkula District Commission Holds Flipkart And Its Seller Liable For Deficiency In Services

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Punjab) bench comprising Satpal (President), Dr. Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr. Barhm Prakash Yadav (Member) held Flipkart and its seller liable for deficiency in services for failure to deliver the product and refunding money four months after filing the complaint. The bench directed it to pay the interest rate of four months on the refund amount and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000 to the Complainant. Brief Facts: Mr. Kamal Rathi (“Complainant”) placed an order on Flipkart Internet Private Limited's website (“Flipkart”) for a wooden dining set valued at Rs. 16,057/-. After waiting a few days, when the dining set was not delivered, the Complainant contacted Flipkart regarding the delivery. He was advised to wait for an additional 24 hours and was informed about the option to cancel the order if necessary. The intended purpose of the purchase was to gift the dining set to the Complainant's mother-in-law. Even after that, the order was not delivered. Thereafter, the Complainant made several communications with Flipkart but didn't receive a satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Punjab (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Flipkart and the seller. After around four months from filing the complaint, the Complainant received the refund for the order informing him that his order was cancelled. The Complainant argued for compensation for the mental distress and harassment incurred by him. Flipkart and its seller didn't appear before the District Commission. Therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission noted that during several communications with the customer support representatives of Flipkart, they acknowledged the non-delivery and expressed apologies for the inconvenience faced by the Complainant. Therefore, it held that Flipkart failed to fulfil its obligation of delivering the dining set despite receiving payment of Rs. 16,057/-. Consequently, it held Flipkart liable for deficiency in services for non-delivery of the product and cancelling the order without the consent of the Complainant. It noted that the amount of Rs. 16,057/- was refunded by Flipkart but directed Flipkart to pay the interest rate of 9% per annum for four months. It further directed Flipkart and its seller to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and litigation charges incurred by the Complainant. Case Title: Kamal Rathi vs Flipkart Internet Private Limited and Anr.

Failure To Deliver Dining Set, Panchkula District Commission Holds Flipkart And Its Seller Liable For Deficiency In Services

Smita Singh

Tags