Flipkart told to pay rs 8,000 for deficient service | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Feb 22, 2017-Wednesday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Flipkart told to pay rs 8,000 for deficient service

chandigarh Updated: Jun 05, 2015 21:40 IST
HT Correspondent
HT Correspondent
Hindustan Times

For failing to rectify a technical defect, the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh, directed an online shopping portal to pay Rs 8,000, including Rs 5,000 as compensation, for deficient service to Sector 19 resident, on Monday.

Dhawal Bhandari had moved the consumer forum against the online shopping portal Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd, accusing it of deficiency in service for failing to rectify a technical fault in a facility 'Flipkart Wallet' provided by the portal.

Dhawal, in his complaint, had stated that he had bought a modem/router from Flipkart in July 2014, but the same turned out to be defected. Even the replacement given to him was defective, he added.

"So I sought refund, but the same was not given to me. Instead the amount was kept by Flipkart in some facility called Flipkart Wallet, where the refunded money was kept for lifetime and a customer can use it any time to purchase any product," he added.

Bhandari's main grievance was the Rs 2,549 amount, which was lying in his Flipkart Wallet, disappeared. Following which, the matter was reported to shopping portal's customer care and he was told that it was due to a technical problem in the system and the same will be rectified soon. But, nothing was done in this regard.

Thus, the complainant was constrained to spend extra money Rs 1,773 to purchase a new modem from his own money from some other website.

Flipkart, seeking dismissal of the complaint, said the amount in the wallet balance was not reflecting due to some technical error, which was resolved and the amount was reflecting in the complainant's wallet balance as on date.

Consumer forum presided over by PL Ahuja said, "The online portal failed to rectify the said technical defect despite repeated assurances. Thus, the delay amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainant is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses.