Consumer Forum in Delhi Rules Against Flipkart in Defective Tablet Case
In a strong order against India’s leading e-commerce marketplace, Flipkart, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III (West), Delhi, has directed the company to refund money and pay compensation to a customer for selling a defective product and failing to follow its own policies.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to September 2020. Rajeev Mahay, a resident of Vikaspuri in Delhi, bought a Lenovo Tab M10 from Flipkart for Rs 10,999. The tablet was delivered on September 27, 2020.
However, after opening the package, Rajeev found that the tablet’s display was not working properly. He immediately informed Flipkart about the issue. A technician later visited his home and confirmed that the device was defective.
Even with this confirmation, Flipkart didn’t replace the tablet as promised within the 30-day replacement policy. The company also failed to arrange a reverse pickup of the faulty product.
Flipkart’s Defence Rejected
During the hearing, Flipkart argued that it was only an “intermediary” and that the product was sold by a third-party seller. The company also claimed that the damage may have been caused by the customer.
The forum, headed by Chairperson Sonika Mehrotra, rejected these arguments. The court observed that Flipkart had violated its own policies and failed to provide proper service to the customer.
Interestingly, Flipkart offered Rs 15,000 as a settlement during the hearing, but the customer refused the offer.
Forum’s Order
In its judgement delivered on March 12, the Consumer Forum held Flipkart guilty of “gross deficiency in service”. It issued the following directions:
- Flipkart must refund the full amount of Rs 10,999 paid for the tablet.
- The company must pay Rs 5,000 for mental harassment caused to the customer.
- An additional Rs 4,000 must be paid towards litigation expenses.
The court has further ordered Flipkart to comply with these directions within 30 days.
Citation: Rajeev Mahay Vs Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd (District Consumer Disputes Redressal); Complaint Case No. 21/75; 11/03/2026.
