CIA-III

LAW OF E-COMMERCE

CASE ANALYSIS

FLIPKART INTERNET PVT. LTD.

VS

SH. DINESH KUMAR

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR.ARUNIMA GURBAAZ SINGH PURI

20213223
FACTS:

The factual matrix of the case revolves around Dinesh Kumar, the complainant, who ventured
into the realm of e-commerce to procure a Xiaomi M13 mobile phone from the online platform
of Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. on 19th August 2014. The transaction was facilitated through his
acquaintance, Anup Saklani, and the consideration exchanged amounted to a sum of Rs. 13,999.
The mobile device functioned seamlessly until the 27th of April 2015, when an unfortunate
incident occurred during the complainant's sojourn to the city of Mumbai, spanning from the
25th of April to the 4th of May 2015. It was during this period that the screen of the mobile
phone sustained a crack, rendering it unresponsive and inoperative.

In a bid to rectify the situation, the complainant sought assistance from Prodcon Tech Service
Pvt. Ltd. in Mumbai, where he was informed that the repair process would necessitate a duration
of 10 to 15 days, accompanied by a financial outlay of Rs. 6,600. Dissatisfied with this
proposition, the complainant opted to explore alternative avenues upon his return and
approached the Xiaomi Shimla Service Centre. However, the response he received was akin to
the previous one, with a demand for Rs. 6,600 for the repair, notwithstanding the fact that the
product was still within the warranty period.

Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party in this legal tussle, adamantly refused to replace the
damaged phone screen free of cost, asserting their role as a mere intermediary and disavowing
any affiliation as the seller or authorized service center of the manufacturer.

ISSUES:

1. Could Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986, despite their assertion of being an intermediary?

2. Was Flipkart legally obligated to replace the defective phone screen free of cost during the
warranty period, notwithstanding their claimed intermediary status?

3. Was the compensation awarded by the District Forum for mental agony, harassment, and
litigation costs reasonable?
REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

The State Commission relied on two pivotal provisions of the Consumer Protection Act to
determine Dinesh Kumar's status as a consumer. Firstly, Section 3 of the Act states that the relief
provided under the Act is an additional recourse, superseding other existing laws. This provision
establishes the Act's precedence and ensures that consumers are not deprived of their rights due
to technicalities in other laws.

Secondly, Section 2(d)(i) of the Act defines a 'consumer' as including users of goods other than
the direct purchasers. In the present case, although Dinesh Kumar did not directly purchase the
mobile phone from Flipkart, he was undoubtedly the intended user of the device. His friend,
Anup Saklani, facilitated the purchase on his behalf.

By taking into account these two provisions, the State Commission concluded that Dinesh
Kumar fell squarely within the definition of a 'consumer' under the Act. This determination was
critical in validating his standing to initiate the complaint against Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.

To assess Flipkart's liability, the State Commission meticulously weighed several crucial factors:

1. The mobile phone was manufactured by the China-based company, Xiaomi, indicating that
Flipkart was not the manufacturer.

2. However, Flipkart had directly imported the mobile phone, underscoring their involvement in
the supply chain and distribution of the product.

3. Crucially, Flipkart had received the consideration amount directly from Anup Saklani, the
complainant's friend, for the sale of the mobile phone.

These factors collectively demonstrated that Flipkart was not merely a passive intermediary but
an active participant in the sale and distribution of the mobile phone. Despite their claims of
being an intermediary, Flipkart's direct importation of the product and receipt of the
consideration amount inextricably linked them to the transaction.
Consequently, the State Commission concluded that Flipkart could not absolve itself of liability
by invoking their intermediary status. Their involvement in the supply chain and direct receipt of
payment obligated them to replace the defective phone screen free of cost during the warranty
period.

The State Commission recognized the arduous journey the complainant, Dinesh Kumar, had to
endure due to Flipkart's successive appeals. He was compelled to approach the State
Commission on two occasions, resulting in added inconvenience and emotional turmoil.

In light of these circumstances, the State Commission deemed the compensation of Rs. 20,000
awarded by the District Forum for mental agony and harassment to be reasonable and
commensurate with the complainant's ordeal.

Furthermore, the State Commission acknowledged the complainant's perseverance in contesting

the case before both the District Forum and the State Commission. This protracted legal battle
inevitably incurred legal expenses. Therefore, the State Commission found the litigation costs of
Rs. 5,000 awarded by the District Forum to be reasonable and justifiable, considering the
prolonged nature of the proceedings.

CONCLUSION:

1. The complainant, Dinesh Kumar, was unequivocally a 'consumer' under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986, by virtue of being the user of the mobile phone, notwithstanding the fact
that he was not the direct purchaser.

2. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. was legally bound to replace the defective mobile phone screen free
of cost during the warranty period, irrespective of their claimed status as an intermediary. This
obligation stemmed from their direct importation of the product and receipt of the consideration
amount, thereby inextricably linking them to the transaction.

3. The compensation of Rs. 20,000 awarded by the District Forum for mental agony and
harassment, as well as the litigation costs of Rs. 5,000, were deemed reasonable and justified by
the State Commission in light of the prolonged legal battle and the attendant emotional toll borne
by the complainant.
JUDGMENT:

After a thorough and judicious examination of the facts, issues, and arguments presented, the
State Commission unanimously dismissed Flipkart's appeal and affirmed the District Forum's
order.

Consequently, the State Commission directed Flipkart to comply with the District Forum's order
by replacing the damaged mobile phone screen free of cost within a stipulated period of 45 days.
Additionally, Flipkart was mandated to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation for the mental agony
and harassment endured by the complainant, Dinesh Kumar, as well as Rs. 5,000 towards
defraying the litigation costs incurred.

The State Commission's judgment served as a resounding affirmation of the principles of

consumer protection and the responsibilities borne by entities involved in the sale and
distribution of goods, transcending their purported intermediary status. The ruling upheld the
inalienable rights of consumers to seek redressal for defective products and affirmed the
reasonableness of the compensation awarded to mitigate the inconvenience, emotional distress,
and financial burdens shouldered by the aggrieved party.

This landmark decision resonated as a clarion call for e-commerce platforms and intermediaries
to uphold the highest standards of accountability and consumer welfare, lest they be held liable
for the products they facilitate in the market, irrespective of their claimed roles or business
models.