Refusal To Repair Defective TV And Issue Refund, Flipkart And TV Manufacturer Held Liable By Tiruvallur District Commission

Brief Facts:

Mr S. Murugan (“Complainant”) ordered a Television (“TV”) from Flipkart, manufactured by Thompson TV Consulting Room Pvt. Ltd. (“Manufacturer”). The TV came with one year warranty. Shortly after installation, a defect resurfaced in the TV and the Complainant immediately informed the Customer Care to which the manufacturer replied with the assurance that the defect would be rectified shortly. The manufacturer’s personnel visited the Complainant’s house to inspect the TV. The personnel assured the Complainant that the TV would be repaired within a week. However, it was never repaired. The Complainant sought a refund from Flipkart through the invoice, however, Flipkart cancelled the same. Thus, the Complainant filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu (“District Commission”) seeking for refund of the TV cost along with a compensation of Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and unfair trade practice and Rs. 10,000 towards cost of proceedings.

Observations of the Commission:

The District Commission perused the evidence provided by the complainant to hold that the both the manufacturer of the TV and Flipkart engaged in deficient service and unfair trade practices by selling a defective TV to the Complainant. They also promised a refund but later canceled the return order, indicating their liability for selling the faulty product and failing to rectify it or refund the cost. The acceptance of the cancellation order by Flipkart suggested the product's defectiveness, which was not addressed despite being within the guarantee period.

Reliance was placed on the case of Sri Animesh Baidya vs Amazon Seller Services Private Ltd. Case No. A. 172021, wherein the Tripura State Consumer Commission held Amazon Seller Service and Amazon Courier Service liable as the defective product was being stored and delivered by them. Thus, the District Commission reiterated that even the agent, who sells a product, is duty bound to ensure the quality of the contended product and if it is found defective, the agent would be held vicariously liable for the loss caused to the purchaser.

As a result, the District Commission held that both Flipkart and the manufacturer are liable for committing deficiency in service. Flipkart and the manufacturer were ordered to refund the complainant Rs. 17,749 for the TV within four weeks from the receipt of the order. Additionally, they are required to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the mental distress and difficulties caused by the TV purchase, along with Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses to the complainant.

Case: S. Murugan vs Flipkart India Pvt Ltd and others

Case No.: Complaint Case No. CC/180/2022

Advocate for the Complainant: D. Vishvabharathi-C

Advocate for the Respondents: N.A.

Click Here To Read/Download Order