Mumbai man who received oil instead of iPhone from Flipkart to get Rs 1.8 lakh

The court ruled that both Flipkart and the seller, International Value Retail Pvt Ltd, were jointly and severally liable, while dismissing the complaint against Apple India.According to the order, the complainant, a resident of Powai, bought an Apple iPhone 14 Pro (128 GB) on Flipkart on April 22, 2023, for Rs 1,11,793 under a no-cost EMI scheme. A consumer court in Mumbai has directed Flipkart and a seller to refund more than Rs 1.11 lakh to a customer who said he received beard growth oil instead of the Apple iPhone he had ordered online. The forum also ordered them to pay Rs 70,000 towards compensation and litigation costs.In its order passed earlier this month, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Additional DCF, Mumbai (Suburban), held that repeatedly closing the customer’s complaints without giving any effective relief amounted to an "unfair trade practice".It ruled that both Flipkart and the seller, International Value Retail Pvt Ltd, were jointly and severally liable, while dismissing the complaint against Apple India.According to the order, the complainant, a resident of Powai, bought an Apple iPhone 14 Pro (128 GB) on Flipkart on April 22, 2023, for Rs 1,11,793 under a no-cost EMI scheme. The commission noted that the order was placed through the online platform after making the necessary payment. While a separately ordered charger and cover were delivered successfully, the main package delivered the next day contained "beard growth oil" and packing material instead of the smartphone.The complainant said he repeatedly contacted Flipkart’s customer support between April and May 2023 and submitted all required documents, but the issue was not resolved. Instead, the complaint was repeatedly marked as "resolved" without any refund or replacement. The commission said, "Therefore, the opposite party No 1 (Flipkart) owed a corresponding duty to ensure that the consumer received the product ordered and to provide an effective mechanism for redressal of consumer grievances."It added that an e-commerce entity cannot simply distance itself from a transaction after facilitating the sale, especially when a consumer immediately reports delivery of a completely different product.The forum said the failure to investigate the complaint, recover the wrongly delivered parcel, provide a replacement or refund, and repeatedly close the complaint without effective relief "amounts to a clear cut deficiency in service and also constitutes an unfair trade practice".It also said the seller’s failure to deliver the contracted product and rectify the grievance despite repeated requests clearly established deficiency in service on its part.The commission directed Flipkart and the seller to refund Rs 1,11,793 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from April 22, 2023, until actual realisation. They were also ordered to pay Rs 50,000 for mental agony and harassment and Rs 20,000 as litigation costs within 45 days.Apple India, which was also made a party to the case, had argued in its written statement that the complaint was not maintainable in law or on facts and should be dismissed.The company said it sells Apple-branded products through independent dealers and resellers on a principal-to-principal basis and has no control over the obligations of such sellers towards customers.Accepting this contention, the commission said the dispute was only about delivery of the wrong product and that there was no evidence linking the manufacturer to the packaging, dispatch or the alleged deficiency in service. The order, therefore, held Flipkart and the seller liable and dismissed the complaint against Apple India.- EndsPublished By: India Today Web Desk Published On: Jul 24, 2026 10:40 IST