• Home
  • About Us
  • Events
  • Submissions
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • NewsVoir
  • Newswire
  • Nasheman Urdu ePaper

Nasheman

India's largest selling Urdu weekly, now also in English

  • News & Politics
    • India
    • Indian Muslims
    • Muslim World
  • Culture & Society
  • Opinion
  • In Focus
  • Human Rights
  • Photo Essays
  • Multimedia
    • Infographics
    • Podcasts
You are here: Home / News & Politics / India / Consumer forum orders Flipkart to pay man Rs 10k for mental harassment after it cancels iPhone order

Consumer forum orders Flipkart to pay man Rs 10k for mental harassment after it cancels iPhone order

March 18, 2024 by Nasheman

Mumbai: A consumer disputes redressal commission here found Flipkart guilty of adopting unfair trade practices and ordered it to pay a customer Rs 10,000 for the mental harassment he suffered after it cancelled his iPhone order.

The cancellation was intentional to make extra profit, which amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair and restrictive trade practice adopted by the online platform, said the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai, in the order passed last month.

The detailed order was available on Sunday.

The commission noted that though the customer had received a refund, he needed to be compensated for the mental harassment and agony he suffered because of the unilateral cancellation of his order.

As per the complainant, a Dadar resident, he ordered an iPhone from Flipkart on July, 10 2022 and paid Rs 39,628 using his credit card.

The phone was supposed to be delivered on July 12, but six days later he received an SMS from the e-commerce company that his order was cancelled.

When contacted, the company told him that their Ekart delivery boy had made several attempts to deliver the product but the complainant was unavailable and hence, the order was cancelled.

The cancellation has not only caused loss, and mental harassment but also subjected him to online fraud, the complainant said.

Flipkart’s delivery partner, Ekart Logistics, was also a party to the complaint but the commission held that it is a delivery partner and there is no consumer and service provider relationship between the complainant and the logistics firm.

Flipkart, in its written response, said the complainant had mistakenly taken it as the seller of the product.

The company said it merely operates as an online platform as an intermediary, and all the products on the platform are sold and supplied by independent third-party sellers.

The seller in this case was International Value Retail Private Limited, and Flipkart had no role to play in the entire transaction entered between the complainant and the seller, it said.

The company claimed that it informed the seller of the complainant’s grievance, the latter said the delivery person had made several attempts to deliver the product to the address but the complainant was unavailable and hence, the order was cancelled by the seller.

The money has been refunded and the dispute exists only between the complainant and the seller, and there is no cause of action against Flipkart, it said.

However, the commission, noted that the order was “unilaterally cancelled” by the e-commerce company that too when the complainant was constantly in touch with it and was assured that his concern was being looked into.

It further said Flipkart had not produced any proof about multiple attempts of service by it or by the seller as claimed.

The commission noted that Flipkart has admitted that the order was cancelled and the complainant was asked to place a fresh order.

This adds weight to the complainant’s case that the cost of the said product had increased by around Rs 7,000 and hence the order was cancelled and he was asked to place a fresh order, it said.

The commission pointed out that Flipkart had done this intentionally to make extra profit, which amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair and restrictive trade practices adopted by it.

“Though the complainant has received the refund, he needs to be compensated for the mental harassment and agony suffered by him due to the unilateral cancellation of his order by Flipkart,” it said.

The commission ordered Flipkart to pay Rs 10,000 towards compensation for the mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs 3,000 towards the cost.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Print
  • WhatsApp

Related

Filed Under: India, News & Politics

About Nasheman

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

KNOW US

  • About Us
  • Corporate News
  • FAQs
  • NewsVoir
  • Newswire
  • Realtor arrested for NRI businessman’s murder in Andhra Pradesh

GET INVOLVED

  • Corporate News
  • Letters to Editor
  • NewsVoir
  • Newswire
  • Realtor arrested for NRI businessman’s murder in Andhra Pradesh
  • Submissions

PROMOTE

  • Advertise
  • Corporate News
  • Events
  • NewsVoir
  • Newswire
  • Realtor arrested for NRI businessman’s murder in Andhra Pradesh

Archives

  • March 2024 (130)
  • February 2024 (229)
  • January 2024 (102)
  • December 2023 (142)
  • November 2023 (69)
  • October 2023 (74)
  • September 2023 (93)
  • August 2023 (118)
  • July 2023 (139)
  • June 2023 (52)
  • May 2023 (38)
  • April 2023 (48)
  • March 2023 (166)
  • February 2023 (207)
  • January 2023 (183)
  • December 2022 (165)
  • November 2022 (229)
  • October 2022 (224)
  • September 2022 (177)
  • August 2022 (155)
  • July 2022 (123)
  • June 2022 (190)
  • May 2022 (204)
  • April 2022 (310)
  • March 2022 (273)
  • February 2022 (311)
  • January 2022 (329)
  • December 2021 (296)
  • November 2021 (277)
  • October 2021 (237)
  • September 2021 (234)
  • August 2021 (221)
  • July 2021 (237)
  • June 2021 (364)
  • May 2021 (282)
  • April 2021 (278)
  • March 2021 (293)
  • February 2021 (192)
  • January 2021 (222)
  • December 2020 (170)
  • November 2020 (172)
  • October 2020 (187)
  • September 2020 (194)
  • August 2020 (61)
  • July 2020 (58)
  • June 2020 (56)
  • May 2020 (36)
  • March 2020 (48)
  • February 2020 (109)
  • January 2020 (162)
  • December 2019 (174)
  • November 2019 (120)
  • October 2019 (104)
  • September 2019 (88)
  • August 2019 (159)
  • July 2019 (122)
  • June 2019 (66)
  • May 2019 (276)
  • April 2019 (393)
  • March 2019 (477)
  • February 2019 (448)
  • January 2019 (693)
  • December 2018 (736)
  • November 2018 (572)
  • October 2018 (611)
  • September 2018 (692)
  • August 2018 (667)
  • July 2018 (469)
  • June 2018 (440)
  • May 2018 (616)
  • April 2018 (774)
  • March 2018 (338)
  • February 2018 (159)
  • January 2018 (189)
  • December 2017 (142)
  • November 2017 (122)
  • October 2017 (146)
  • September 2017 (178)
  • August 2017 (201)
  • July 2017 (222)
  • June 2017 (155)
  • May 2017 (205)
  • April 2017 (156)
  • March 2017 (178)
  • February 2017 (195)
  • January 2017 (149)
  • December 2016 (143)
  • November 2016 (169)
  • October 2016 (167)
  • September 2016 (137)
  • August 2016 (115)
  • July 2016 (117)
  • June 2016 (125)
  • May 2016 (171)
  • April 2016 (152)
  • March 2016 (201)
  • February 2016 (202)
  • January 2016 (217)
  • December 2015 (210)
  • November 2015 (177)
  • October 2015 (284)
  • September 2015 (243)
  • August 2015 (250)
  • July 2015 (188)
  • June 2015 (216)
  • May 2015 (281)
  • April 2015 (306)
  • March 2015 (297)
  • February 2015 (280)
  • January 2015 (245)
  • December 2014 (287)
  • November 2014 (254)
  • October 2014 (185)
  • September 2014 (98)
  • August 2014 (8)

Copyright © 2024 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in