The Aryavarth Express
Agency(Mumbai): The Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Flipkart accountable for engaging in unethical business practices by intentionally cancelling a customer’s iPhone purchase, resulting in a directive for the e-commerce giant to compensate the aggrieved party Rs 10,000 for emotional distress. This judgment, passed last month, was publicly disclosed this Sunday, pinpointing Flipkart’s strategy as a deliberate ploy for increased profits, thereby constituting both service deficiency and unfair, restrictive business conduct.
The commission underscored that, notwithstanding the refund issued to the consumer, the arbitrary cancellation inflicted significant mental distress and discomfort that warranted redress. The complainant, a resident of Dadar, had placed an order for an iPhone on July 10, 2022, for which he paid Rs 39,628 through his credit card. Expected to receive his phone by July 12, he was instead informed via text message six days post-purchase by Flipkart about the cancellation of his order.
Upon inquiry, Flipkart attributed the cancellation to the alleged unavailability of the customer despite multiple delivery attempts by their courier service, Ekart Logistics. This action not only caused financial and emotional strain to the buyer but also raised concerns over potential online scamming.
Although Ekart Logistics was implicated in the grievance, the commission clarified that it functions solely as a courier and does not hold a consumer-service provider relationship with the complainant. Flipkart, in its defense, argued that the misunderstanding stemmed from the customer’s incorrect assumption of Flipkart being the direct seller, rather than an intermediary platform hosting independent third-party vendors, with International Value Retail Private Limited being the seller in question here.
Flipkart contended that the delivery and order cancellation issues were matters between the customer and the seller, absolving itself of direct responsibility. However, the commission found Flipkart’s unilateral decision to cancel the order, especially when the customer was actively seeking resolution, as a clear act of service failure. It highlighted the lack of evidence from Flipkart to substantiate their claim of multiple delivery attempts.
The determination by the commission that Flipkart strategically cancelled the order to profit from a price hike further accentuates the online retailer’s liability for the customer’s distress. Accordingly, aside from the mental distress compensation, Flipkart is also directed to cover Rs 3,000 for the legal expenses incurred by the complainant, affirming the need for accountability in online retail practices.
