The recent ruling by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chandigarh has resulted in a fine of ₹30,000 imposed on Flipkart, OnePlus, and a mobile phone retailer. This penalty was levied due to the sale of a used phone being misrepresented as new, as highlighted in the case of Ashwani Chawla v. Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd and Ors.
Alongside the fine, the Commission mandated a complete refund of the amount paid for the used phone to the complainant. The observations of Presiding Member Padma Pandey and Member Preetinder Singh pointed out that, according to the phone's service record, it had been activated roughly four months before the complainant's purchase. Despite the assertion of delivering a new handset, the service record explicitly revealed an activation date of 02.03.2023.
This case originated from a complaint filed by Ashwani Chawla, who, on July 17, 2023, had purchased a new OnePlus 11R 5G through Flipkart. Faced with operational issues, Chawla discovered the phone's earlier activation during a visit to a OnePlus service center. Despite seeking resolution from OnePlus, Bathla Teletech (the seller), and Flipkart, the complainant received no response and eventually opted to purchase a new phone. Unsatisfied, he brought the matter before the Commission.
The Commission concluded that the phone sold was indeed old and used, with the involved parties (Flipkart, OnePlus, and the retailer) displaying a lack of concern for addressing the issue. The order underscored the evidence illustrating the complainant's fruitless attempts to seek a remedy and criticized the parties for prioritizing profits over addressing customer grievances.
Additionally, the Commission addressed the issue of receiving two invoices for the same transaction, with the second bill charging ₹49 as "handling fees." Deeming the second bill unjustified, the Commission considered it an unfair trade practice, akin to 'dark patterns' practices under Section 2(1)(e) of the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023. It emphasized that promising the delivery of a new product but failing to replace or refund it constituted a 'dark patterns' practice. The parties were instructed to discontinue the practice of issuing separate bills for a single transaction, claiming handling fees, and to abstain from engaging in unfair contracts, unfair trade practices, and 'dark patterns' practices.
Regarding Flipkart's liability, the Commission held that, by permitting the third-party seller on its platform, Flipkart couldn't evade responsibility. The Commission directed the parties to refund ₹40,941 for the mobile phone and an additional ₹49 charged for handling. Furthermore, they were ordered to collectively pay ₹10,000 for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and harassment, along with an additional ₹10,000 for litigation expenses and ₹10,000 to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission.