Feedback

Flipkart and OnePlus Held Liable for Selling Used Mobile as New: Consumer Commission Orders Refund and Compensation

Chandigarh Consumer Commission Penalizes Flipkart and Associates for Unfair Trade Practices

In a significant judgment, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, directed Flipkart and other associated parties, including OnePlus, to refund the purchase amount, compensate the complainant for harassment, and deposit penalties for selling a used mobile handset under the pretense of it being brand new. The order highlights the liability of e-commerce platforms and manufacturers in ensuring transparency and accountability in their operations.

Case Background

The Complaint:

• Complainant Ashwani Chawla purchased a OnePlus 11R 5G (Sonic Black, 256GB) handset from Flipkart on July 17, 2023, for ₹40,941, along with an additional offer handling fee of ₹49.
• Upon using the device, the complainant observed frequent software malfunctions, including rapid battery drainage and the phone hanging during camera usage.
• The complainant approached an authorized service center, which revealed that the handset was activated on March 2, 2023, proving it was not a brand-new product as claimed.

Efforts for Resolution:

• The complainant contacted Flipkart, the seller (Bathla Teletech Pvt. Ltd.), and the manufacturer (OnePlus Technology India Pvt. Ltd.), but none of the parties resolved the issue or provided a replacement or refund.
• Frustrated by the lack of redressal, the complainant filed a consumer complaint, alleging deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, and violation of consumer rights.

Commission’s Findings

Defective and Misrepresented Product:

• Evidence submitted by the complainant, including service records and invoices, confirmed that the mobile handset was used and defective at the time of delivery, contrary to the representation of it being brand new.

Unfair Billing Practices:

• Flipkart issued two separate bills for the transaction, charging an additional offer handling fee of ₹49, apart from standard shipping and handling charges. The Commission deemed this as an unfair trade practice and “dark patterns,” designed to deceive consumers into paying unreasonable charges.

Negligence and Unfair Trade Practices:

• Flipkart, the seller, and the manufacturer were collectively held accountable for failing to address the complainant’s grievances promptly. The Commission criticized their lack of customer support and their role in misleading the consumer.

Liability of Flipkart:

• The Commission rejected Flipkart’s argument that it was merely a platform facilitating transactions and highlighted its active role in the sale and representation of the product. As the primary interface for the transaction, Flipkart bore responsibility for ensuring the quality and authenticity of the goods sold on its platform.

Commission’s Order

The State Consumer Commission issued the following directives:

Refund and Compensation:

• Refund ₹40,941 (invoice price) plus ₹49 (offer handling fee) to the complainant with 9% annual interest from the date of payment until realization.
• Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
• Pay ₹10,000 as litigation expenses.

Penalty for Unfair Practices:

• Deposit ₹10,000 (@ ₹2,500 from each opposite party) in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by the State Commission.

Discontinue Unfair Practices:

• Immediately stop issuing separate bills for offer handling fees or engaging in similar “dark patterns” practices that mislead consumers.

Compliance Deadline:

• The order must be complied with within one month of receipt, failing which:
  • Refund and compensation amounts will accrue 12% annual interest.
  • The penalty amount will also attract 12% annual interest.

Return of Product:

• The complainant must return the defective handset to the opposite parties after compliance with the order.

Implications of the Judgment

Accountability of E-Commerce Platforms:

• The judgment reaffirms that e-commerce platforms cannot evade liability by claiming to be mere intermediaries. Their active role in transactions binds them to address consumer grievances.

Transparency in Billing:

• Charging hidden fees or issuing separate bills for the same transaction is a deceptive practice that will not be tolerated under Consumer Protection laws.

Consumer Empowerment: