Consumer forum fines Flipkart Rs 10,000 for refusing to return fake product

Flipkart's rejection of the return, citing its 'no return policy', was deemed an unfair trade practice by the consumer court

A District Consumer Redressal Forum in Mumbai has issued a ruling in favour of a consumer, ordering e-commerce giant Flipkart India and the vendor of a food product to pay Rs 10,000 in legal costs. The case stemmed from the complainant’s inability to return a defective item she had purchased, according to a report by Bar and Bench.

 

The forum, led by President Samindara Surve and Member Sameer Kamble, found that Flipkart’s refusal to accept the return of the product under its ‘no return policy’ amounted to an unfair trade practice and a deficiency in service.

 

“We therefore observe that not taking back the said product by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 5 on the ground of ‘no return policy’ amounts to adoption of an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 5. Since the Opposite Party No. 5 has failed either to replace or pay the value thereof to the complainant, therefore, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 5,” the consumer redressal forum mentioned.

 

What is the dispute? 

The case revolved around a complaint filed by Taruna Rajput, a resident of Goregaon, in Mumbai against Flipkart and seller Deepak Kashyap. Rajput purchased 13 containers of Herbalife Nutrition Fresh Energy Drink Mix (lemon flavoured) from Flipkart on October 9, 2023, for Rs 4,641. Upon receiving the product on October 14, she noticed several issues: The colour and texture were unusual, and the label lacked a QR code. She suspected the product was counterfeit and attempted to return it.

 

However, Flipkart rejected her request, citing its ‘no return policy’. Rajput then engaged in multiple exchanges with Flipkart’s customer service, but no satisfactory resolution was offered. Her complaint said that the product was substandard, and the platform’s refusal to facilitate the return was a violation of consumer rights.

 

What did the court say? 

During the hearing, Rajput presented photographs showing the irregular texture of the product and SMS exchanges confirming Flipkart’s refusal to process the return. The forum held that Flipkart, as the platform responsible for ensuring the quality of products sold through its marketplace, was liable for the deficiency in service. It also found the actions of both Flipkart and the seller to constitute unfair trade practices.

 

The forum, however, dismissed the case against Flipkart’s directors — Prabhu Balasrinivasan, Yogesh Gupta, and Swati Biswas — since no personal allegations had been levelled against them.

 

Compensation and refund 

While the complainant had originally sought Rs 50 lakh in damages, the forum rejected this request due to a lack of evidence that the product was harmful or counterfeit. However, it ordered Flipkart and the seller to refund the Rs 4,641 paid by Rajput for the product, along with 9 per cent interest from October 21, 2023, until the payment is made.

 

In addition to the refund, the e-commerce platform and the seller were directed to pay Rs 10,000 towards the legal costs incurred by the complainant.