Selling A Second Hand Mobile Phone For Price Of A New Phone Is Deficiency In Service: Gurgaon District Commission
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon has held the seller of a Nokia Mobile Phone and its service center liable for selling a second hand phone to the complainant for the price of a new phone. The bench also held Flipkart India liable since the phone was sold through its website. Brief facts: The complainant ordered a new handset- “Nokia-6310 Dual Sim...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon has held the seller of a Nokia Mobile Phone and its service center liable for selling a second hand phone to the complainant for the price of a new phone. The bench also held Flipkart India liable since the phone was sold through its website.
Brief facts:
The complainant ordered a new handset- “Nokia-6310 Dual Sim Feature Mobile TA-1400 DS” through Flipkart India ('website') for a sum of Rs. 2999/-. The mobile was delivered on 19.06.2024 through M/s Dhayal Trading ('seller'). After using the mobile for a few days, the complainant started experiencing malfunctioning issues and visited the Nokia Service Centre at Gurugram. After examination of the mobile, the complainant was shocked to see the internal records provided by the examining staff as per which the activation date for the phone was 25.06.2017 whereas the phone was purchased only on 17.06.2024. The records depicted activation of the phone in the year 2017 in Pakistan.
The complainant then requested the seller for replacement of the mobile phone since a second hand product was sold to him. The complainant also filed a criminal complaint with the Station House Officer (SHO) Civil Lines, Gurugram. On not receiving any satisfactory response, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, Gurugram.
The defense of Flipkart India was struck off by the commission since it failed to file its reply to the complaint. Moreover, no one appeared on behalf of the seller and the Nokia service centre and proceeded as ex-parte. Hence, the commission went on to decide the complaint on the basis of submissions and documents filed by the complainant only.
Flipkart India, M/s Dhayal Trading-seller and Nokia Service centre are collectively referred to as 'Opposite parties'.
Observations of the commission:
The bench examined the documents submitted by the complainant such as internal records, invoice, photograph of the mobile phone, copy of criminal complaint etc. which confirmed the assertions made by the complainant. Since the records produced by the complainant remained unchallenged, the bench held the opposite parties liable for deficiency in service for selling a second hand phone for the price of a new phone.
Hence, the complaint was allowed with the following reliefs:
- Refund the cost of Rs. 2,999/- of the mobile phone
- Rs. 15,000 as compensation for mental agony
- Rs. 11,000 as litigation costs
All amounts were ordered to be paid jointly by the opposite parties.
Case Title: Vedant Verma vs M/s Flipkart India & Ors.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No.1026 of 2024
Date of Decision: 02.07.2025
Click Here To Read/Download The Order