The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Central Mumbai recently imposed a penalty of ₹13,000 of Flipkart for unilaterally cancelling an order placed by a customer for an iPhone [Akshay Vijay Loke v Ekart Logistics and Anr.].

A coram of Commission President Vanadana S Mishra and members Shraddha G Bahirat and Kamlesh R Bhandarkar observed that refunding the cost of the phone did not absolve Flipkart from its liability.

"Though Complainant is refunded the cost of phone that does not absolve Flipkart from its labiality. A Customer who had spent time, energy and money to buy an online product is not interested in refund but in the delivery of product he bought," it observed

The Commission was hearing a complaint by one Akshay Vijay Loke against Flipkart and Ekart logistics.

As per the complaint, on July 10, 2022, Loke ordered an iPhone from Flipkart for ₹39,628 (after discounts). The same was supposed to be delivered on July 12.

On July 18, Loke received a text message from Flipkart informing him that his order had been cancelled. When he contacted customer support, he was told that delivery was attempted multiple times before the order was cancelled.

As per the complainant, the Ekart delivery executive visited only once on July 13, when only the complainant's father was available at home. The complainant's father told the executive to visit in the evening, which the executive agreed to.

However, the executive did not visit and the delivery was rescheduled for the next day, prompting the complainant to take leave from work and stay at home for collecting the order. However, nobody came to deliver the product and the order was eventually cancelled.

No one appeared for Ekart. Therefore, Ekart was proceeded against ex parte.

The counsel for Flipkart stated that Flipkart operates merely as an intermediary and all the products sold on its platform are sold by independent third party sellers. He contended that the complainant had mistaken Flipkart to be the seller.

He further highlighted that as per the seller, the order was cancelled due to multiple failed delivery attempts and that the complainant had received full refund on July 18, 2022.

Stating that the dispute was between the complainant and the seller, Flipkart contended that there was no cause of action against them.

The Commission firstly observed that there was no consumer and service provider relationship between the complainant and Ekart. It, therefore, held the complainant was not a consumer of Ekart.

Based on screenshots provided by the complainant, the Commission observed that all along, Flipkart was the one communicating with the complainant and not even once asked the complainant to call the seller of the phone.

The Commission noted that Flipkart had filed no documents to prove that the phone was sold by a third party seller in its individual capacity. It further noted that the terms and conditions filed by Flipkart did not provide for a situation where it could unilaterally cancel an order even after receiving full payment for any product.

"It also doesn’t provide for how many maximum delivery attempts will be made after which the order will be cancelled. There is no proof of existence of the “International Value Retail Private Limited” (third party seller) or the transaction with the said seller is placed on record by Flipkart to prove that they were only intermediary and had no role to play in the entire transaction," the Commission added.

Therefore, it concluded that the complainant was a consumer of Flipkart.

The Commission noted that no proof of multiple delivery attempts was presented by Flipkart and that the terms and conditions presented by Flipkart did not mention cancellation of order in the event the customer is not available for delivery within specified attempts of service.

Thereafter, the Commission observed that refunding the cost of the phone did not absolve Flipkart of its liability.

Further, it noted that as per Flipkart, the order was cancelled and the complainant was asked to place a fresh order. This, as per the Commission, was questionable and added weight to the complainant's allegation that the cost of the phone increased by 7,000 during the pendency of delivery and therefore, his order was cancelled.

"If according to the Flipkart or the so called third party seller the Complainant was not available to deliver the product, why they asked him to place fresh order after canceling his order? This adds weight to the Complainant’s case that the cost of the said product increased by approximately ₹7,000 and hence his order was cancelled and he was asked to place fresh order," the Commission stated.

Accordingly, the Commission concluded that Flipkart was deficient in its service and directed it to pay ₹10,000 to the complainant for mental agony and harassment and another ₹3,000 towards costs.

[Read Order]