TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Chandigarh man orders mobile from Flipkart, gets dummy phone instead

Flipkart told to pay Rs 10,000 compensation, refund Rs 29,890 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Photo for representational purpose only. Reuters file

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission here has directed Flipkart International Pvt Ltd to pay compensation of Rs 10,000 to a city resident who received a dummy mobile instead of the actual phone. The commission also directed to refund Rs 29,890 along with interest at 9 per cent per annum to the complainant, Sumit Syal, a resident of Panjab University, Chandigarh.

Advertisement

In the complaint filed before the commission, he said he had ordered a mobile phone online through Flipkart and made a payment of Rs 29,890 on September 25, 2019. When he opened the parcel, he was stunned to see a dummy mobile phone inside.

Advertisement

He took the photographs of the dummy phone and complained to Flipkart but the issue did not get resolve.

On the other hand, Flipkart and Ekart Logistics, appeared before the commission through their counsel and claimed that the complaint was not maintainable. Flipkart stated that it was e-commerce platform which acted as an intermediary to facilitate sale transactions between independent third party sellers and independent customers, so it or its operation entity could not be held liable. It falls in the definition of an “intermediary” under Section 2 (1) (w) of the information Technology Act, 2000.

After hearing the arguments, the commission said the complainant was working as an assistant manager in a bank and was a person of repute. Moreover, the record reveals that the amount of Rs 29,890 was not refunded, nor the dummy phone replaced. This caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant for which he should be compensated.

Advertisement

Hence, the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount along with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of receipt of payment till the actual date of refund of amount. The commission also directed them to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement