![\"Man](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-133960956,imgsize-517467,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/fake-iphone-delivery.jpg\" "\\"The")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nA man ordered an iPhone 14 Pro from an e-commerce platform. What he received instead shocked him. The phone that was delivered to him turned out to be a Chinese phone with a fake Apple logo. Instead of the three-camera Deep Purple iPhone he had ordered, he found a green Chinese smartphone carrying a fake Apple logo and only two rear cameras.In a recent order, the district consumer disputes redressal commission in Bulandshahr has directed e-commerce platform Flipkart to refund Rs 1,43,335\/ to the customer.<\/p>\n The dispute arose from an order placed on May 29, 2023, by Om Prakash Singh, a resident of Anoopshahr. He purchased an iPhone 14 Pro through the e-commerce platform and paid Rs 1,43,335 using his credit card.But the contents of the package were not what Singh had ordered. He opened the parcel in front of the delivery executive and found a green-coloured Chinese smartphone inside, with an Apple logo on it.The parcel was delivered to an address in R.K. Puram, New Delhi. The opening of the package was recorded on video using the delivery agent’s phone, and the recording was subsequently sent to Singh through WhatsApp.Singh said he filmed the package being opened and contacted Flipkart’s customer care immediately after discovering the mismatch. He also submitted a request to return the product, expecting the company either to send him the correct phone or refund his payment. Singh said that he immediately used his phone to raise a return request. However, the seller cancelled the request.\u201cThe difference was immediately apparent because the iPhone 14 Pro has three rear cameras, whereas the phone I received had only two. I recorded a video while opening the package as evidence and immediately contacted customer care to report the issue,\u201d Singh stated in his complaint filed on Aug 3, 2023.Singh alleged that his return request was turned down by the seller. He further claimed that a company representative subsequently marked the product as damaged, without carrying out a proper inspection or giving him an opportunity to explain what had happened.He said he made several attempts to get the matter resolved by contacting the company’s toll-free number. Despite these efforts, according to Singh, the phone was neither replaced nor was the amount he had paid refunded.Singh’s advocate subsequently sent a legal notice on July 5, 2023, but the notice was returned undelivered. The postal remark stated that the shop number had not been mentioned.With his attempts to resolve the issue having failed, Singh eventually approached the consumer commission.<\/p>\n In its written response, Flipkart maintained that it was only an online intermediary bringing customers and independent third-party sellers together and was not itself the seller of the phone.The company also relied on its open-box delivery process. According to an ET report, the e-commerce portal argued that Singh had the opportunity to check the contents of the package at the time of delivery and, if he noticed anything wrong, should have refused to accept it. Since he accepted the delivery, Flipkart contended that it could not subsequently be made responsible for refunding the purchase amount.Flipkart denied allegations of fraud and harassment as well, arguing that there was no cause of action against the company under the Consumer Protection Act.District consumer commission public information officer Shekhar Verma said the complaint was heard by commission president Justice Hasnain Qureshi and member Neelam Kumari.\u201cAfter considering the arguments of both sides, the commission rejected the company\u2019s defence and held that it had adopted an unfair trade practice and was seriously deficient in providing service,\u201d Verma said.The commission has ordered the company to take back the phone and refund Rs 1,43,335 to Singh, along with 7% annual interest calculated from the date on which the complaint was filed.The commission described the episode as a \u201cserious deficiency in service\u201d as well as an \u201cunfair trade practice\u201d. It also ordered the Bengaluru-based company to pay an additional Rs 30,000, of which Rs 20,000 were for mental harassment and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.In its order, the commission gave Flipkart 45 days to comply. If the company fails to make the payment within that period, the outstanding amount will carry interest at 8% per annum.<\/div>\nWhat the case is about<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Consumer disputes redressal commission takes note of \u2018serious deficiency in service\u2019<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n