Chandigarh: Charging ₹25 extra for purse’s return costs e-com firm ₹3,000

Chandigarh woman was delivered the wrong purse; when she sought a refund, she was asked to pay ₹25 extra for the return

A Sector-35 resident who took Flipkart to consumer court for charging ₹25 extra for returning a purse has been awarded a ₹3,000 compensation.

Gurbachan Kaur, a resident of Sector 35, Chandigarh, had purchased a bag from Flipkart, sold by ZAPKAP India, for ₹245 on October 1, 2023. However, she complained that she received a completely different product. (Shutterstock)

Terming Flipkart guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 1 has directed the e-commerce company to pay the compensation to complainant Gurbachan Kaur, apart from refunding ₹245, the value of the purse.

Kaur had submitted that she purchased a red clutch bag from Flipkart, sold by ZAPKAP India, for ₹245 on October 1, 2023.

However, she received a completely different product. When she enquired about a refund, she was asked to pay a refund fee of ₹25. The return was not accepted unless she agreed to pay the fee, prompting her to approach consumer court.

Flipkart objected to the maintainability of the complaint, cause of action, concealment of fact, non-joinder of necessary party and also that it had been dragged unnecessarily into the instant litigation.

They alleged that the complainant had purchased the product from ZapKap through their online platform. They were neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the product. Thus, the complaint was not maintainable against them and the complainant could seek relief against the manufacturer and seller of the product.

“..Till date the opposite party (OP) has neither replaced the product nor refunded the price thereof to the complainant. Hence, the aforesaid act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP and the OP being the service provider cannot escape from its liability,” the commission observed.

Regarding Flipkart’s defence that they were neither the manufacturer nor the seller, the commission observed that it stood proved on record that the complainant had, in fact, placed the order through the OP and they had not supplied/delivered the original product. This act clearly amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Further, as the complainant had requested Flipkart several times to refund the amount paid and the same has not been refunded by the OP, till date, the said act also amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.

Thus, Flipkart was directed to refund ₹245 to the complainant and also fined ₹3,000, to be paid to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and towards cost of litigation.