Walmart-backed e-commerce platform
Flipkart
and Chinese smartphone maker
OnePlus
face new troubles in India. The
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
at Chandigarh has imposed a fine of
Rs 30
,000 on Flipkart, OnePlus and a mobile phone retailer for selling a used phone as a brand new one.
Apart from the fine, the commission has also ordered the companies to refund the entire amount paid for the used phone to the complainant, Ashwani Chawla.
The hearing was presided by the Commission's members Padma Pandey and Preetinder Singh. The bench claimed that the phone’s service record has revealed that the device was activated about four months before being purchased by the complainant.
The Commission noted: “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.”
How the complainant found out about the phone
Chawla ordered a new OnePlus 11R 5G through Flipkart in July, 2023. The phone was delivered by the e-commerce platform via a seller named
Bathla Teletech
.
After a few days of usage, the complainant encountered major problems with the phone. This prompted him to visit a OnePlus service centre. Here, Chawla 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 and approaching the Commission.
The complainant also highlighted that he received two invoices for the same transaction. Apart from the phone's cost, the second bill of Rs 49 was for "handling fees."
What the Commission concluded
The Commission concluded that the phone sold to the complainant was old and used. The ruling also noted that the opposite parties (Flipkart, OnePlus and the retailer) were least concerned about remedying the problem.
The Commission’s order stated: “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 Commission also added that the second bill was unreasonable as the first one already included shipping and handling charges. It held this as an unfair trade practice and directed the opposite parties to refund Rs 40,941 for the mobile phone and the additional ₹49 charged for handling.
English (US) ·