MUMBAI: A district consumer commission has ordered e-tailer Flipkart and a third-party seller to refund Rs 2.14 lakh to a Powai resident after he ordered an iPhone online—only to receive beard growth oil and packing material instead. The compensation amount includes the phone’s price and interest and amounts towards causing mental agony and also costs of litigation.“Failure to investigate the complaint, recover the wrongly delivered parcel, provide a replacement or refund and instead repeatedly close the complaint without granting any effective relief amounts to a clear cut deficiency in service and also constitutes an unfair trade practice,” the commission held.The order was passed by President Pradeep G Kadu and Member Gauri M Kapse.The complaint against Apple India was dismissed, with the commission holding that the dispute concerned non-delivery of the phone and not any defect in an Apple product.The complainant Anil Mutalik moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Additional DCF, Mumbai Suburban in 2023. On April 22, 2023, Mutalik had purchased an Apple iPhone 14 Pro, 128 GB, from Flipkart for Rs 1.11 lakh under a no-cost EMI scheme. Along with the phone, Mutalik had also ordered an Apple charger and a phone cover. The charger and cover were delivered, but the package meant to contain the iPhone, delivered on April 23, 2023, allegedly contained beard growth oil and packing material instead. The commission the evidence filed by Mutalik, including invoices, photographs and customer-support screenshots.According to the complaint, Mutalik immediately raised the issue with Flipkart customer support through the mobile application and submitted photographs of the package and invoice. Mutalik claimed that repeated complaints on April 23, May 3, May 4, May 9 and May 21, 2023, did not lead to any refund or replacement.The complaint was allegedly marked as “resolved” without relief and later rejected on the ground that valid identity proof had not been submitted within 48 hours.The commission noted that notices were served on all opposite parties. Flipkart remained absent despite service, leading to ex parte proceedings against the company. International Value Retail appeared but did not file a written statement within the prescribed period. Apple India appeared and contested the complaint, arguing that the dispute related only to the alleged wrong delivery by Flipkart and the seller, and that Apple India had no role in the sale, packaging, dispatch or delivery.The Commission held that Flipkart, as the e-commerce platform facilitating the transaction, payment, shipment, delivery and grievance redressal, could not avoid responsibility after the wrong delivery was reported.The order stated, “An e-commerce entity cannot simply distance itself from a transaction after facilitating the sale, particularly where the consumer immediately reports that a completely different product has been delivered.”On the seller’s liability, the Commission held that International Value Retail was under a contractual and statutory obligation to ensure delivery of the ordered product.The order stated, “The failure of the Opposite Party No 2 (International Value Retail) to deliver the contracted product and to rectify the grievance despite repeated requests clearly establishes deficiency in service on its part.”Apple India was relieved of liability after the Commission found no evidence connecting the company with the disputed delivery.The Commission said, “Mere manufacture of the product intended to be purchased does not render the manufacturer liable where the product itself was never delivered to the consumer.”
