The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Adilabad, Telangana, has held Flipkart and its seller jointly liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after a customer received a different air purifier model than the one ordered. The court ordered Flipkart Internet Private Limited and Consulting Rooms Private Limited to refund Rs 8,398 with 12 percent interest, pay Rs 1.51 lakh as compensation, and Rs 7,000 towards litigation costs.
The Dispute
Swasthik Rathod purchased a Qubo Q600 Air Purifier via Flipkart on October 2, 2025, for Rs 10,399. After a debit card discount of Rs 2,100 and a Rs 99 Protect Promise fee, the final payment was Rs 8,398. The product was advertised under seller Omni Tech Retail, but the invoice showed Consulting Rooms Private Limited.
Rathod bought the purifier due to allergy and dust sensitivity, especially during Diwali when pollution was severe. The commission noted that the wrong delivery led to deterioration of his health due to the negligence of the opposite parties.
The product reached the local hub on October 5 but was delivered on October 16 under Flipkart's Open Box Delivery system. At the first delivery attempt, Rathod noticed the package contained a Qubo Q500 model instead of the Q600. He asked the delivery agent to mark it as failed, but his request was refused.
After receiving the wrong product, he raised a complaint and sought a replacement. Flipkart initially approved it but later cancelled it without his consent, citing out of stock. Rathod also alleged that Flipkart changed the product listing to show the Q500 model after his purchase.
With no resolution, he approached the consumer court. Both Flipkart and Consulting Rooms failed to appear and were set ex-parte on December 29, 2025.
Court's Ruling
The commission observed that Rathod produced invoices, emails, call summaries, and recordings showing repeated complaints. It held that the opposite parties failed to exercise due diligence and redress the complaint in time, constituting unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Their failure to appear reflected their conduct.
On compensation, the commission noted the claimed Rs 2 lakh was exorbitant and reduced it to Rs 1.51 lakh, acknowledging the consumer's suffering. It directed a refund of Rs 8,398 with 12 percent interest, Rs 1.51 lakh compensation, and Rs 7,000 litigation costs, with compliance within 45 days.
