Consumer court orders Flipkart to pay ₹10,000 for not allowing return of substandard product

A District Consumer Redressal Forum in Mumbai recently ordered e-commerce platform Flipkart India and the seller of the product to pay ₹10,000 in costs to a woman after she was unable to return a food product which she claimed was substandard [Taruna Rajput v Flipkart India].

A coram comprising President Samindara Surve and Member Sameer Kamble held that the inability to accept return the product on the ground of 'no return policy' of Flipkart amounted to unfair trade practice and was a deficiency in service.

"We therefore observe that not taking back the said product by the Opposite Party nos.1 and 5 on the ground of ‘no return policy’ amounts to adoption of an unfair trade practice on part of the Opposite Party nos.1 and 5.Since the Opposite Party no. 5 has failed either to replace or paid the value thereof to the Complainant, therefore there is a deficiency service on part of the Opposite Party number 5 is proved," the forum said.

The case involved a complaint filed by one Taruna Rajput, a resident of Goregaon, against Flipkart and seller Deepak Kashyap.

According to the complainant, on October 9, 2023, she purchased 13 containers of Herbalife Nutrition Fresh Energy Drink Mix (lemon flavoured) from Flipkart for ₹4,641.

The product was delivered to her on October 14, 2023. Upon inspecting the product, Rajput found the color and texture to be unusual, and also noticed the label lacked a QR code. Suspecting the product was counterfeit, she sought to return it. However, Flipkart rejected her request, citing a "no return policy."

Rajput then exchanged several text messages with Flipkart’s customer service but was not provided with a satisfactory resolution of her complaint.

The complainant argued that the product was substandard and that Flipkart's refusal to accept the return amounted to unfair trade practices.

During the hearing, the complainant submitted photographs showing the unusual texture of the product and SMS correspondence with Flipkart confirming the platform's refusal to process the return.

The Commission found that Flipkart, as the e-commerce platform, was responsible for ensuring the quality of products sold through its marketplace. It concluded that Flipkart and the seller were guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

However, the commission dismissed the case against Flipkart’s directors, Prabhu Balasrinivasan, Yogesh Gupta and Swati Biswas since no personal allegations had been made against them.

The complainant’s request for ₹50 lakh in damages was rejected, as she failed to provide evidence of harmful ingredients or the product being counterfeit.

Subsequently, it ordered the e-commerce platform and its seller to refund ₹4,641 to the complainant along with 9% interest from October 21, 2023, until the payment is made.

Additionally, Flipkart and the seller were directed to pay ₹10,000 towards the complainant's legal costs.

[Read Order]