NEW DELHI: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Adilabad in 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 he had ordered.The court ordered both opposite parties — Flipkart Internet Private Limited and Consulting Rooms Private Limited — to refund Rs 8,398 with 12 per cent interest and pay Rs 1.51 lakh as compensation along with Rs 7,000 towards litigation costs, after finding that the consumer suffered due to the wrong delivery and the failure to resolve the complaint.What was the disputeThe case was filed by Swasthik Rathod, who purchased a Qubo Q600 Air Purifier through Flipkart on October 2, 2025, for Rs 10,399. After applying a debit card discount of Rs 2,100 and paying Rs 99 towards Flipkart’s Protect Promise fee, the final amount paid was Rs 8,398.The product was advertised under the seller name Omni Tech Retail, though the invoice was later found to be issued in the name of Consulting Rooms Private Limited.The consumer stated that he purchased the air purifier due to allergy and dust sensitivity, particularly during the Diwali period when air pollution was severe.The commission noted this and said that the wrong delivery led to “the complainant’s deterioration of health conditions perfect seen due to the negligence attitude of the Opposite Parties.”The product reached the local delivery hub on October 5, but it was delivered on October 16 under Flipkart’s Open Box Delivery system.At the time of the first delivery attempt on October 5, the consumer noticed that the package contained a Qubo Q500 model instead of the Qubo Q600 he had ordered. He asked the delivery agent to mark the delivery as failed under the open-box delivery process, but his request was allegedly refused.After receiving the wrong product, the consumer raised a complaint and sought a replacement, Flipkart initially approved the replacement but later cancelled it without the consumer’s consent, claiming the product was out of stock.The consumer also alleged that Flipkart changed the product listing after his purchase to show the Qubo Q500 model instead of the Qubo Q600.With no satisfactory resolution, he approached the district consumer court.Both Flipkart and Consulting Rooms Private Limited failed to appear before the Commission even after receiving notice and were set ex-parte on December 29, 2025.What did the court say?The Adilabad consumer commission observed that the buyer had produced documents including invoices, email correspondence, call summaries, and call recordings — showing that he had repeatedly raised the issue after receiving the wrong product.The commission further held that “the Opposite Parties failed to exercise due diligence and also failing to redress the complaint in time,” and that the unresolved complaint and wrong delivery amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.It also noted that the opposite parties’ failure to appear before the Commission “reflecting their conduct that there is no point for them to appear and contest the matter.”On compensation, the commission acknowledged the consumer’s suffering but noted that “the compensation sought is highly exorbitant and cannot be granted in full but in part,” reducing the claimed Rs 2 lakh to Rs 1.51 lakh.The commission directed Flipkart and the seller to refund Rs 8,398 with 12 per cent interest, pay Rs 1.51 lakh as compensation, and pay Rs 7,000 towards litigation expenses, with full compliance required within 45 days from the date of the order.