A district consumer commission has directed e-commerce platform Flipkart and a third-party seller to refund over Rs 2.14 lakh to a Powai resident after he ordered an iPhone online but allegedly received beard growth oil and packing material instead, reported TOI.
The compensation includes the cost of the phone, interest, damages for mental agony, and litigation expenses.
“Failure to investigate the complaint, recover the wrongly delivered parcel, provide a replacement or refund and instead repeatedly close the complaint without granting any effective relief amounts to a clear cut deficiency in service and also constitutes an unfair trade practice,” the commission held.
The order was passed by President Pradeep G Kadu and Member Gauri M Kapse.
The commission dismissed the complaint against Apple India, holding that the dispute related to the non-delivery of the iPhone and not to any defect in an Apple product.
What was the complaint?
Complainant Anil Mutalik approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Additional DCF, Mumbai Suburban, in 2023.
On April 22, 2023, Mutalik purchased an Apple iPhone 14 Pro (128 GB) from Flipkart for Rs 1.11 lakh under a no-cost EMI scheme. He also ordered an Apple charger and a phone cover.
While the charger and phone cover were delivered, the package meant to contain the iPhone, delivered on April 23, 2023, allegedly contained beard growth oil and packing material instead.
The commission considered the evidence submitted by Mutalik, including invoices, photographs, and customer support screenshots.
Multiple complaints, no resolution
According to the complaint, Mutalik immediately reported the issue through Flipkart's mobile application and uploaded photographs of the package and invoice.
He claimed that repeated complaints made on April 23, May 3, May 4, May 9, and May 21, 2023, did not result in either a refund or a replacement.
The complaint was allegedly marked as "resolved" without any relief and was later rejected on the ground that valid identity proof had not been submitted within 48 hours.
What did the commission say?
The commission noted that notices were served on all the opposite parties. Flipkart remained absent despite being served, leading to ex parte proceedings against the company.
International Value Retail appeared before the commission but did not file a written statement within the prescribed period.
Apple India contested the complaint, arguing that the dispute concerned the alleged wrong delivery by Flipkart and the seller, and that it had no role in the sale, packaging, dispatch, or delivery of the product.
The commission held that Flipkart, as the e-commerce platform facilitating the transaction, payment, shipment, delivery, and grievance redressal, could not evade responsibility after the wrong delivery was reported.
The order stated, “An e-commerce entity cannot simply distance itself from a transaction after facilitating the sale, particularly where the consumer immediately reports that a completely different product has been delivered.”
On the seller's liability, the commission held that International Value Retail was under a contractual and statutory obligation to ensure delivery of the ordered product.
The order stated, “The failure of the Opposite Party No 2 (International Value Retail) to deliver the contracted product and to rectify the grievance despite repeated requests clearly establishes deficiency in service on its part.”
Apple India was relieved of liability after the commission found no evidence linking the company to the disputed delivery.
The commission said, “Mere manufacture of the product intended to be purchased does not render the manufacturer liable where the product itself was never delivered to the consumer.”
