Consumer forum orders Flipkart to pay man Rs 10k for mental harassment after it cancels iPhone order
Mumbai, Mar 17: A consumer disputes redressal commission here found Flipkart guilty of adopting unfair trade practices and ordered it to pay a customer Rs 10,000 for the mental harassment he suffered after it cancelled his iPhone order.
The cancellation was intentional to make extra profit, which amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair and restrictive trade practice adopted by the online platform, said the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai, in the order passed last month.
The detailed order was available on Sunday.
The commission noted that though the customer had received a refund, he needed to be compensated for the mental harassment and agony he suffered because of the unilateral cancellation of his order.
As per the complainant, a Dadar resident, he ordered an iPhone from Flipkart on July, 10 2022 and paid Rs 39,628 using his credit card.
The phone was supposed to be delivered on July 12, but six days later he received an SMS from the e-commerce company that his order was cancelled.
When contacted, the company told him that their Ekart delivery boy had made several attempts to deliver the product but the complainant was unavailable and hence, the order was cancelled.
The cancellation has not only caused loss, and mental harassment but also subjected him to online fraud, the complainant said.
Flipkart's delivery partner, Ekart Logistics, was also a party to the complaint but the commission held that it is a delivery partner and there is no consumer and service provider relationship between the complainant and the logistics firm.
Flipkart, in its written response, said the complainant had mistakenly taken it as the seller of the product.
The company said it merely operates as an online platform as an intermediary, and all the products on the platform are sold and supplied by independent third-party sellers.
The seller in this case was International Value Retail Private Limited, and Flipkart had no role to play in the entire transaction entered between the complainant and the seller, it said.
The company claimed that it informed the seller of the complainant's grievance, the latter said the delivery person had made several attempts to deliver the product to the address but the complainant was unavailable and hence, the order was cancelled by the seller.
The money has been refunded and the dispute exists only between the complainant and the seller, and there is no cause of action against Flipkart, it said.
However, the commission, noted that the order was "unilaterally cancelled" by the e-commerce company that too when the complainant was constantly in touch with it and was assured that his concern was being looked into.
It further said Flipkart had not produced any proof about multiple attempts of service by it or by the seller as claimed.
The commission noted that Flipkart has admitted that the order was cancelled and the complainant was asked to place a fresh order.
This adds weight to the complainant's case that the cost of the said product had increased by around Rs 7,000 and hence the order was cancelled and he was asked to place a fresh order, it said.
The commission pointed out that Flipkart had done this intentionally to make extra profit, which amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair and restrictive trade practices adopted by it.
"Though the complainant has received the refund, he needs to be compensated for the mental harassment and agony suffered by him due to the unilateral cancellation of his order by Flipkart," it said.
The commission ordered Flipkart to pay Rs 10,000 towards compensation for the mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs 3,000 towards the cost.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
