The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh recently imposed a fine of ₹30,000 on Flipkart, OnePlus and a mobile phone retailer for selling a used phone as a brand new one [Ashwani Chawla v. Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd and Ors].

The fine was in addition to a direction to refund to the complainant the entire amount paid for the used phone.

A coram of Presiding Member Padma Pandey and Member Preetinder Singh observed that according to the phone’s service record, it was activated about four months before being purchased by the complainant.

“Record showed that the subject product was received from Opposite Party No.1 (Flipkart) as a brand new handset on 17.07.2023, while the service record dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure C-3) makes it evidently clear that as per the online mobile data system of the service centre, the date of activation of the product was 02.03.2023,” the Commission noted.

The Commission was hearing a complaint by one Ashwani Chawla, who had ordered a new OnePlus 11R 5G through Flipkart on July 17, 2023, via a seller named Bathla Teletech.

After a few days of usage, the complainant encountered major problems with the phone, prompting him to visit a OnePlus service centre. There, he discovered that his phone was activated four months before he had bought it.

The service centre redirected him to the manufacturer (OnePlus), seller (Bathla Teletech), and online marketing platform (Flipkart). However, the complainant received no replies and ended up purchasing a new phone. Aggrieved, he approached the Commission.

The Commission concluded that the phone sold to the complainant was old and used and that the opposite parties (Flipkart, OnePlus and the retailer) were least concerned about remedying the problem.

“Evidence on record goes a long way to prove that the Complainant (had to) run from pillar to post searching for a remedy, but to no avail. The manner in which the Opposite Parties acted themselves showed that they are least concerned about the customer grievance redressal but are just concentrated upon earning profits through misleading the public and then, not addressing their Complaints,” the order stated.

The complainant also highlighted that he received two invoices for the same transaction. In addition to the phone's cost, the second bill charged ₹49 as "handling fees."

The Commission determined the second bill to be unreasonable since the first one had already included shipping and handling charges. This, the Commission held, constituted an unfair trade practice.

It added that this was as a form of 'dark patterns' practice, as per Section 2(1)(e) of the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023. It emphasized that assuring the delivery of a first-hand product but failing to fulfill the responsibility of replacing or refunding it was also a 'dark patterns' practice.

Regarding Flipkart’s liability, the Commission stated that once it had allowed the third-party seller to operate on its platform, it could not ignore its responsibility.

Accordingly, the Commission directed the opposite parties to refund ₹40,941 for the mobile phone and the additional ₹49 charged for handling.

They were also directed to jointly and severally pay ₹10,000 to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment, another ₹10,000 for litigation expenses, as well as ₹10,000 to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission.

Moreover, the opposite parties were ordered to immediately discontinue the practice of issuing two separate bills for a single transaction on the pretext of offering a handling fee and not to indulge in such unfair contracts, unfair trade practices and 'dark patterns' practices.

The complainant was represented by Advocate Pankaj Chandgothia.

Flipkart was represented by Advocate Gaurav Bhardwaj.

[Read Order]