In a significant ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Mumbai, has directed Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. and its associated seller to refund ₹4,641 along with ₹10,000 in compensation to a consumer for selling substandard food products and refusing their return under a “no return” policy. The decision underscores the liability of e-commerce platforms and sellers for quality issues in the products they market.
The Case Background:
The case, numbered DCDRC/MS/CC/600/2023, was brought by complainant Taruna Rajput, a resident of Mumbai, against Flipkart and five other parties, including directors of Flipkart and the seller, Deepak Kashyap. Rajput had ordered 13 containers of Herbalife Nutrition Fresh Energy Drink Mix (lemon flavor) on October 9, 2023, for ₹4,641 via Flipkart’s platform. Upon receiving the product on October 14, 2023, she observed irregularities in its color and texture, suspecting it to be fake. Additionally, the product lacked a QR code, raising further doubts about its authenticity.
When Rajput sought to return the product, Flipkart rejected her request, citing its “no return” policy for the item. The complainant then documented her concerns with photographs and SMS exchanges with Flipkart’s customer support. Dissatisfied with the response, she filed a complaint alleging unfair trade practices and deficiency in service under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Legal Issues:
The court deliberated on the following key issues:
1. Whether the complainant qualified as a consumer: The court affirmed the complainant’s status as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, as the purchase was made for consideration.
2. Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice: The court found Flipkart and its seller guilty of both. It observed that the seller’s refusal to replace or refund the defective product, coupled with Flipkart’s enforcement of the “no return” policy, amounted to an unfair trade practice.
3. Liability of directors: The court dismissed the complaint against Flipkart’s directors, stating that no direct allegations were made against them.
Key Observations of the Court:
Presiding Judge Samindara R. Surve and Member Sameer S. Kamble emphasized the responsibility of e-commerce platforms to ensure the quality of products sold on their marketplaces. They noted:
“The Opposite Party no.1 [Flipkart] being the e-business marketplace is under obligation to ensure that products sold through its platform meet quality standards. Rejecting a return request on the grounds of a ‘no return policy’ for a defective product is a clear violation of consumer rights.”
The court also highlighted that the seller, Deepak Kashyap, failed to address the complainant’s concerns or offer any resolution, further constituting a deficiency in service.
The Court’s Decision:
The Commission passed the following orders:
1. Refund ₹4,641 to the complainant, with 9% annual interest from October 21, 2023, until realization.
2. Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony and costs incurred.
3. The complaint against Flipkart’s directors was dismissed due to a lack of specific allegations.
