Mumbai: Observing that not taking back a product on the grounds of a ‘no return policy’ amounts to the adoption of an unfair trade practice, a consumer commission has ordered Flipkart India Pvt Ltd and the seller to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to a Goregaon woman.
The woman’s attempts to return nutrition supplements on the grounds of quality were thwarted by the e-commerce retailer.The woman, Taruna Rajput, submitted that while she regularly ordered Herbalife Nutrition Fresh Energy Drink, the product she received in Oct 2023 appeared to be fake.
The commission said that the product’s seller, Delhi-based Deepak Kashyap, failed to either replace or pay the value to the complainant, amounting to deficiency in service. It observed that Flipkart, the e-business marketplace, is under obligation to ensure that the product being sold from its e-marketplace is of good quality.
“From the SMS exchanged between the parties on record, it appears that the complainant sought to reach the customer care of the opposite party… however, she was not entertained on the grounds of the no return policy of the said food product. We therefore observe that the opposite party… is responsible for the sale of the product, and if the product is sought to be returned by the complainant for want of quality, she is entitled to get the amount paid for it…,” the commission said.
The consumer commission ordered the two to refund Rs 4,641, which Rajput had paid for the product.
Rajput moved the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on Jan 4. She said that on Oct 9, 2023, she placed five orders totalling Rs 4,641 with the e-commerce retailer. These orders were for 13 small plastic containers of Herbalife Nutrition Fresh Energy Drink Mix (lemon flavoured).
The products were delivered on Oct 14, 2023. Rajput submitted that upon opening the containers around Oct 21, 2023, she noticed abnormalities in the colour and texture of the product. Additionally, the product labels lacked a QR code. She alleged that the delivered product was a counterfeit or substandard item and sought a refund, which was denied. Before the commission, Rajput also sought compensation of Rs 50 lakh as damages. However, the commission refused this and said, “The complainant (Rajput) has not produced any laboratory test report in support of her case that the food product contained harmful ingredients or was a fake product.”