The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered an e-commerce major and its authorised service agent to refund a customer the price of a defective television and compensation, dispelling the argument that the consumer had bought the product in another person’s address and hence was not eligible for rights guaranteed under the Consumer Protection Act.
The Commission comprising president D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. issued the verdict on a petition filed by Dinil N.V. of Alangad in North Paravur against Flipkart Internet Private Limited and their authorised service agent Jeeves Consumer Service Private Limited.
According to the petitioner, he had bought a television with a one-year warranty plus an extended two-year warranty for ₹996 from the first opposite party for a discounted price of ₹15,582. It was bought in the name of Pradeep S. of Eloor as the first opposite party was unable to deliver the product in the complainant’s residential address.
The television developed a complaint in August 2021. After the first opposite party registered an incident, the second opposite party examined the television and adjudged the problem as irreparable. It was later picked up by the agent of the opposite parties. Afterwards, the first opposite party created a claim ₹11,096.40 with an undertaking to credit it within 48 hours. However, neither of the opposite parties refunded the amount.
Later, when the complainant sent a registered legal notice to the opposite parties, the first opposite party replied that Flipkart did not make any representation or warranty as to specifics (such as quality, value, saleability, etc.) of the products or services proposed to be sold or offered to be sold or purchased on the website.
Meanwhile, Mr. Pradeep gave a consent letter to the complainant undertaking that the product was bought by the complainant who has the absolute right to plead, claim any right related to the product.
The first opposite party contended it only acted as an intermediary through its web interface www.flipkart.com and provided a medium to various sellers all over India to offer for sale and sell their products. These sellers are separate entities being controlled and managed by different persons or stakeholders.
The second opposite party contended that the complainant did not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act since the product was purchased in the name of Mr. Pradeep.
However, the Commission observed that even if the argument of the opposite parties were accepted they could not evade responsibility based on the allegation raised by the complainant. Even before the complainant secured the authorisation from Mr. Pradeep, the opposite party had agreed to refund, which the Commission cited as proof of the opposite party’s acceptance of monetary obligation to the complainant.
Consequently, the Commission asked the opposite parties to refund the complainant the refund, compensation of ₹20,000 and ₹10,000 towards legal cost.
