Flipkart Violates E-Commerce Disclosure Guidelines, Berhampur District Commission Orders Compensation Of Rs. 20,000 To Consumer

Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Berhampur bench comprising Mr Satish Kumar Panigrahi (President) and Mrs Saritri Pattanaik (Member) held Flipkart liable for cancelling a customer’s order citing unforeseen error by the seller. Upon being inquired, Flipkart failed to provide the seller’s information as well as displaying the information on the website, as mandated under Regulation 5(a)(3) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. The District Commission held that even as an intermediary, Flipkart cannot evade liability and cannot backtrack once the contract is confirmed. Brief Facts: Sri Gandhi Behera ("Complainant") placed an order for Adidas Run stunner M running shoes in size 10 using the Flipkart Mobile App (“Flipkart”) on July 20, 2022. The order was for Rs.957 and included 51 super coins. However, Flipkart unexpectedly cancelled the order on July 21, 2022, without providing any reasons or consulting the Complainant. In response to the Complainant's inquiry about the cancellation, Flipkart responded negatively, attributing the cancellation to an unforeseen error by the seller. The Complainant then lodged a complaint with the National Consumer Helpline (NCH). In response, Flipkart suggested the Complainant reorder the shoes, despite the price change, but this was declined by the Complainant. Flipkart also offered a Rs.150 gift card, which was also refused by the Complainant. Surprisingly, Flipkart told the NCH that the customer rejected the new product due to price differences and disconnected the call. NCH advised legal action and closed the complaint. Seeking a resolution, the Complainant emailed Flipkart, outlining the issues, but no resolution was achieved. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Berhampur (“District Commission”). Seeking a compensation for the original price of the shoes, Rs. 4999, along with Rs. 5000 as compensation and Rs. 10,000 to cover litigation costs in the interest of service quality. The complainant argued that Flipkart deliberately withheld the accurate name and address of the product's seller, preventing the complainant from involving the seller in the case. The complainant provided evidence through a screenshot of the Order ID, showing the seller's name as "HS Atlastrade Fashion," but without an address. Interestingly, Flipkart, in its Preliminary Objections and Evidence on Affidavit, stated the seller's name as "Bhumika Highstreet India Private Limited" but didn't disclose the seller's address. Additionally, the complainant argued that Flipkart’s actions of non-disclosure fall under sub-clause (a)(3) of Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, indicating a violation of these regulations. Contrary to this, Flipkart alleged that the complaint is false and baseless. As an online platform, Flipkart only connects buyers with third-party sellers. The product in question was bought from the seller "Bhumika Highstreeet India Private Limited." When the complainant raised concerns, Flipkart relayed the issue to the seller. The seller cited unforeseen reasons for cancelling the order, offering a Rs. 150 credit and suggesting a new order. Flipkart conveyed this to the complainant, demonstrating its role as an intermediary. Observations of the Commission: The District Commission observed that the evidence clearly supported the complainant's acceptance of Flipkart's online offer and his choice of cash on delivery. However, Flipkart not only rendered inadequate service but also engaged in unfair business practices. It failed to display necessary seller information as required by the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Moreover, when questioned, Flipkart didn't provide the requested seller details. Regarding compensation and expenses, the District Commission acknowledged that the complainant repeatedly sought resolution from Flipkart, but no effective measures were taken to address the issue. Consequently, the complainant suffered both physically and mentally, warranting compensation. Reliance was placed on the case of Supriyo Ranjan Mahapatra v. M/s Amazon Development Center India Pvt. Ltd. FA No.:492/2018, which established that an advertisement-initiated offer confirmed by a customer forms an agreement. The company's obligation to fulfil this agreement is crucial, and it must not backtrack once the contract is confirmed. Any breach of the contract entails compensating the aggrieved party. As a result, Flipkart was instructed to provide the complainant with Rs. 15,000 for emotional distress and Rs. 5,000 to cover legal expenses within 45 days. The District Commission also mandated Flipkart to adhere to Regulation 5(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, which outlines disclosure requirements. Case: ...

Flipkart Violates E-Commerce Disclosure Guidelines, Berhampur District Commission Orders Compensation Of Rs. 20,000 To Consumer

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Flipkart Violates E-Commerce Disclosure Guidelines, Berhampur District Commission Orders Compensation Of Rs. 20,000 To Consumer

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers