Consumer Commission Raps Flipkart Over Complaint Regarding Product Quality
The commission ruled that the seller of the food product was also guilty of deficiency in service for not accepting the return.
(Image source: Anirudh Saligrama/NDTV Profit)
A consumer disputes redressal commission here found Flipkart guilty of unfair trade practice for not accepting the return of an 'inferior quality' food product, citing that it is under "obligation to see the product sold on its platform is of good quality".
The commission ruled that the seller of the food product was also guilty of deficiency in service for not accepting the return.
In an order passed earlier this month, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Mumbai Suburban) directed the seller and the e-commerce company to refund the customer the price she paid for the product with interest.
The complainant, a resident of Goregaon, said she had bought 13 small plastic containers of an health drink mix for Rs 4,641 from Flipkart in October 2023.
After delivery, however, the complainant claimed she found that the colour and texture of the product were not normal.
She also noticed that no QR code was mentioned on the label of the said product, and she alleged that "a fake duplicate product" was delivered to her.
When the complainant sought to return the product, Flipkart rejected the request, citing a no-return policy.
The commission, in its order, noted that the complainant had produced the SMS correspondence between her and Flipkart, which shows that the e-commerce company has specifically mentioned that this product has a "no return policy". It noted that this amounts to an unfair trade practice on the company's part.
The commission also held that since the seller failed to either replace or pay the value thereof to the complainant, the deficiency in service on its part is proved.
"The opposite party number 1 (Flipkart), being an e-business marketplace, is under obligation to see to that the product being sold from its e-marketplace is of good quality," it observed.
The commission then directed that the price the complainant paid for the product be refunded to her with interest.
It also directed both the e-commerce company and the seller to pay a compensation of 10,000 to the woman.
