Gurgaon Consumer Commission: Selling Used Phone as New Amounts to Deficiency in Service
Pranav B Prem
In a firm stance against deceptive e-commerce practices, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon has held that selling a second-hand mobile phone under the pretext of a new product amounts to deficiency in service and constitutes an unfair trade practice. The ruling was delivered in Vedant Verma v. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. & Others and directed against Flipkart India, the seller M/s Dhayal Trading, and Nokia’s authorized service center. The Commission concluded that all three were jointly responsible for the wrongful sale and the mental agony caused to the complainant.
The complainant, Vedant Verma, a resident of Gurugram, had placed an order on 17.06.2024 through the e-commerce platform Flipkart for a Nokia 6310 Dual SIM Feature Phone (Model TA-1400 DS) for ₹2,999. The phone was delivered just two days later, on 19.06.2024, via seller M/s Dhayal Trading, as confirmed by invoice number FAR3M22500002056. Initially assuming the device to be new, the complainant began using it but soon encountered frequent malfunctioning, prompting him to visit a Nokia Authorized Service Centre located at Old Delhi Road, Rajiv Nagar, Gurugram on 13.08.2024.
To his surprise, upon examining the device via its IMEI number, the service center staff provided internal records showing that the phone had an activation date of 25.06.2017—almost seven years before the date of purchase. More disturbingly, the records revealed that the device had originally been sold, activated, and shipped in Pakistan. The phone was identified with serial number 356002082958907, sold model as "Nokia 3310 DS TA-1030 NV OK WARMRED," and it had no active warranty. These revelations clearly indicated that the device was neither new nor the model the complainant had paid for.
Faced with this shocking discovery, the complainant reached out to the seller to seek a replacement, but received no satisfactory resolution. He also filed a criminal complaint dated 14.08.2024 with the Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram, and sent supporting communications via email. With the seller remaining unresponsive and the platform offering no meaningful redress, the complainant proceeded to file a consumer complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before the District Commission, seeking compensation for mental harassment, a refund of the product’s cost, and litigation expenses.
Notably, Flipkart India, despite being duly served, failed to submit a reply or appear before the Commission. Consequently, its defense was struck off by the Commission on 18.11.2024. The seller, M/s Dhayal Trading, and Nokia’s authorized service center also chose not to appear despite service and were proceeded against ex parte as of 07.10.2024.
In support of his complaint, the complainant submitted a detailed affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) and a range of supporting documents marked as Exhibits C-1 through C-13. These included the invoice, photographs of the phone, internal activation records from Nokia’s database, and copies of the criminal complaint and related correspondence. The Commission observed that these documents clearly corroborated the complainant’s version of events. Given that the opposite parties failed to contest or rebut the material placed on record, the Commission found no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s assertions.
Upon careful review of the affidavit and documentary evidence, the Commission held that there was clear and established deficiency in service on the part of all three opposite parties. The sale of a previously activated, second-hand mobile phone while representing it as a new product was found to not only constitute deficiency in service but also amount to unfair trade practice. The Commission further commented that such conduct, particularly by sellers on e-commerce platforms, falls within the broader category of “fraud and dark patterns,” which the law seeks to prevent.
Accordingly, the complaint was allowed in full, and the Commission issued the following directions. All three opposite parties—Flipkart India, M/s Dhayal Trading, and Nokia’s authorized service center—were held jointly and severally liable to refund the full cost of the mobile phone, i.e., ₹2,999, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of purchase (19.06.2024) until the date of actual payment. In addition, the complainant was awarded ₹15,000 as compensation for mental harassment, pain, and agony suffered, and ₹11,000 towards litigation expenses.
The Commission made it clear that these amounts were to be paid within 45 days from the date of uploading of the order (with a 24-hour buffer), failing which the amounts would attract a higher rate of interest at 12% per annum from the date of default until realization. Further, the Commission warned that non-compliance could invite penal consequences under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, including the possibility of imprisonment and monetary fines. It also reminded the complainant that in case of non-compliance, he would be at liberty to initiate execution proceedings under Section 71(1) of the Act.
Appearance
Complainant in person.
Shri Nitish Desodiya, Advocate for the OP No.1(defence struck off VOD 18.11.2024).
OPs No.2 & 3 proceeded against ex-parte VOD 07.10.2024.
Cause Title: Vedant Verma V. M/s Flipkart India & Ors.
Case No: Consumer Complaint No.1026 of 2024
Coram: Shri Sanjeev Jindal [President], Ms.Jyoti Siwach [Member], Ms.Khushwinder Kaur [Member]
