A consumer court in Mumbai has directed the e-commerce platform Flipkart India and a seller on it to pay Rs 10,000 to woman who approached the court after she was unable to return a food product which she claimed was substandard.
The court directed the e-commerce platform and its seller to refund Rs 4,641 to the complainant along with 9% interest from October 21, 2023, until the payment is made. This will be in addition to the Rs 10,000 cost imposed on Flipkart.
The district consumer forum held that the inability to accept return of the product on the ground of 'no return policy' amounted to unfair trade practice and was a deficiency in service by Flipkart. The commission said that Flipkart was responsible for ensuring the quality of products sold through its marketplace.
A complaint was filed by a Goregaon resident Taruna Rajput against Flipkart and a seller on the e-commerce platform. The complaint also implicated directors of Flipkart. However, the court only imposed cost on Flipkart and seller, while quashing case against directors.
The case of the woman was that on 9th October, 2023, she placed 5 orders, totalling to 13 small plastic containers of Herbalife Nutrition of Fresh Energy Drink Mix (lemon flavoured) by paying Rs.4,641/-. She said that the food product was delivered to her on 14th October, 2023. And on or around 21st October, 2023, the Complainant opened the said containers and found that the colour and texture of the said food product was not normal.
The woman also noticed that no QR code was mentioned on the label of the said products. According to the Complainant, it was a fake duplicate product, which was delivered to her. The woman therefore sought to return the said product, however Flipkart rejected the request of the Complainant on the ground that the product has no return policy.
Thereafter, the woman took photographs and exchanged SMS with the Flipkart and on non-compliance of the request thereof by Flipkart, she filed the Complaint. During the hearing, the woman also showed photographs showing the unusual texture of the product.
"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 order read.
The woman sought Rs 50 lakh in damages, but the court did not allow the prayer as she failed to provide evidence of harmful ingredients or the product being counterfeit.