Feedback

Siliguri Circuit Bench Rules on Counterfeit Product Sold via Flipkart

Case Title: Jamal Haider vs. Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Others
Case No.: CC/3/2021
Judgment Date: April 22, 2024
Court: Siliguri Circuit Bench, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Overview of the Case

The West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's Siliguri Circuit Bench delivered its judgment in a case where a counterfeit product was sold via Flipkart's platform. The court dismissed the claims against Flipkart (OP No.1) and another party (OP No.3) but held the seller (OP No.2) liable for providing a fake product and failing to address the complainant's concerns.

Background

Product Purchased:
The complainant, Jamal Haider, ordered a nutritional supplement (Muscletech Performance Series Nitrotech Whey Protein Milk Chocolate) through Flipkart on August 6, 2021.

Issue of Authenticity:
Upon receiving the product, the complainant found no scratch code to verify its authenticity. After consulting with OP No.3 (manufacturer or associated distributor), the product was confirmed to be counterfeit.

Actions Taken:

• The complainant contacted Flipkart (OP No.1), which redirected him to the seller (OP No.2).
• Despite multiple follow-ups, no refund or compensation was provided, prompting the complainant to file a complaint for compensation.

Claims by the Parties

Complainant:

• Claimed a refund for the counterfeit product.
• Sought compensation for mental and physical agony caused by the incident.

Flipkart (OP No.1):

• Argued that it operates solely as an intermediary as defined under the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 and Information Technology Act, 2000.
• Denied any role in the sale or authenticity of the product, emphasizing its role in merely facilitating transactions between buyers and sellers.

OP No.2 (Seller):

• Did not appear in court, leading to an ex-parte hearing against it.

OP No.3 (Distributor/Manufacturer):

• Also did not contest the claim, resulting in an ex-parte dismissal of claims against it.

Key Findings of the Court

Liability of Flipkart (OP No.1):

• The court accepted Flipkart's claim that it acted only as an intermediary under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• However, the court noted that Flipkart could have taken stricter actions to prevent the sale of counterfeit products on its platform.

Liability of Seller (OP No.2):

• The seller was held responsible for selling the counterfeit product.
• The complainant provided sufficient evidence, including communication with OP No.3, confirming the product's counterfeit nature.

Liability of OP No.3:

• The case against OP No.3 was dismissed due to lack of evidence indicating direct involvement.

Court Order

Against OP No.1 and OP No.3:

• The complaint was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove their direct liability.

Against OP No.2:

• The seller was directed to:
  • Refund ₹6,524 (cost of the counterfeit product).
  • Pay ₹20,000 as compensation for mental and physical agony.
  • Pay ₹10,000 as litigation costs.
• The payment is to be made within 45 days of receiving the order.

General Observations:

• The court emphasized the potential health risks posed by counterfeit nutritional products and stressed the need for stricter monitoring of such sales by e-commerce platforms.

Implications of the Judgment

For Consumers:

• Reinforces consumer rights to claim refunds and compensation for counterfeit products.
• Highlights the need to verify product authenticity and document all communications during disputes.

For E-commerce Platforms:

• While intermediaries like Flipkart may not be directly liable, the judgment stresses their responsibility to ensure compliance with consumer protection laws.

For Sellers: