Flipkart, TV Manufacturer Found Guilty Of Deficiency In Service Over Defective Product Sale
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Flipkart and Thomson TV held liable by Mumbai Consumer Commission for selling a faulty TV and failing to resolve the issue. Commission orders refund and compensation.
Mumbai: Today, on June 26, In a key judgment protecting consumer rights, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in South Mumbai held both e-commerce giant Flipkart and Thomson TV India Private Limited guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after a defective television was sold to a customer through the Flipkart platform.
The commission ruled that Flipkart could not “escape liability” by claiming it was just a “mere intermediary” in the transaction.
The complaint was filed by a customer who had bought a Thomson LED TV on February 19, 2021, from Flipkart. Soon after the purchase, the TV began showing serious technical problems such as display issues, sound defects, and power failures.
Despite repeated attempts to reach out to both Flipkart and the manufacturer for repair or replacement, no satisfactory solution was provided.
Eventually, the customer approached the consumer commission, alleging that there was a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice involved in the sale.
Flipkart tried to defend itself by stating that it was merely an online marketplace that facilitates transactions between sellers and buyers.
It said it did not manufacture or sell the product directly and that its role was limited to being an intermediary.
Flipkart also argued that the buyer failed to use the 10-day replacement option, and after that period, responsibility for any issue shifted to the manufacturer. Flipkart also submitted that it was not a “service provider” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.
On the other hand, Thomson TV India Private Limited claimed that the television was under warranty and that complaints were attended to following standard procedures.
It blamed the issues on possible misuse, mishandling, or conditions beyond its control.
However, the commission rejected these arguments. It said that the buyer had made timely complaints after the TV developed faults soon after purchase.
The commission stated that Thomson’s claim of resolving the issue was not backed by any solid evidence.
It observed that,
“Thomson TV’s defence that it attempted to resolve the complaint is not supported by any substantial proof such as service visit reports or replacement records.” Instead, the communication records showed, “a lackadaisical approach by the manufacturer’s customer service.”
Taking a firm view of Flipkart’s role, the commission said that the e-commerce platform could not avoid responsibility.
It noted that the invoice had Flipkart’s branding and that customer service was provided through its platform.
Therefore, Flipkart “cannot escape liability,” and the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020, clearly mandate that e-commerce platforms must ensure that sellers fulfill their obligations to customers.
Referring to previous Supreme Court rulings, the commission stated that Flipkart’s involvement went beyond being a passive platform.
Since it played an active part in both the sale and post-sale process, it could not be treated merely as an intermediary. The commission thus held both Flipkart and Thomson TV “jointly and severally liable” for the service failure.
As part of its decision, the commission ordered both companies to refund the full purchase amount of Rs 13,999 along with interest.
Additionally, they were directed to pay Rs 15,000 to the complainant for mental agony and inconvenience, and Rs 5,000 as litigation costs.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Flipkart
