Mumbai Consumer Commission Holds Flipkart, Thomson Liable for Faulty TV

Mumbai, Jun 26 (PTI) – In a significant ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in South Mumbai has determined that Flipkart cannot evade responsibility as a "mere intermediary" in an online transaction, holding both the e-commerce platform and television manufacturer Thomson accountable for service deficiency after a defective TV was delivered to a buyer.

The respective defenses from the manufacturer, Thomson, regarding attempts to address the issue lacked adequate evidence, indicating a "lackadaisical approach," as noted by the commission in an order issued earlier this month.

The commission directed Flipkart and Thomson to refund the entire amount of Rs 13,999 paid for the faulty TV, inclusive of interest, alongside additional compensation of Rs 15,000 for mental distress and inconvenience, and Rs 5,000 to cover litigation expenses.

The consumer had purchased a Thomson LED TV via Flipkart on February 19, 2021, but the set soon exhibited technical problems such as power failures, sound disturbances, and display glitches. The consumer's repeated efforts to obtain remediations from both the manufacturer and the online platform proved futile, as neither resolution nor replacement was effectively supplied.

This prompted the complainant to file a complaint with the commission, citing deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

Flipkart defended itself by claiming its role was merely as an intermediary facilitating transactions between sellers and buyers and not as a seller or manufacturer of goods. It further argued that the complainant did not take advantage of the 10-day replacement policy, post which the responsibility rested with the manufacturer.

Furthermore, Flipkart asserted it did not qualify as a "service provider" under the Consumer Protection Act.

Meanwhile, Thomson TV India Private Limited maintained that the product was still within warranty and that any issues raised were addressed per standard terms. The company also cited potential misuse, mishandling, or situations beyond its control for any delays or malfunctions.

The commission's order highlighted that the product developed faults shortly after the purchase and that complaints were promptly registered.

"Thomson's defense of resolving the complaint lacks any substantial proof, such as service visit reports or records of replacement attempts. Most correspondence indicates a lackadaisical customer service approach by the manufacturer," the order added.

The commission concluded that the failure to repair or replace the defective product within the warranty period constituted a "deficiency in service" and an "unfair trade practice."

On assessing Flipkart's contribution, the commission noted that since the invoice carried Flipkart’s branding and customer service was managed via its platform, the firm "cannot escape liability." This aligns with the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules 2020, which demand that e-commerce entities ensure that sellers meet consumer obligations.

Referencing past Supreme Court rulings, the commission remarked that Flipkart could not simply act as a "mere intermediary" due to its active involvement in both sales and post-sales processes.

Consequently, both the e-commerce firm and the TV manufacturer were found jointly and severally liable for the service deficiency.

(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)