Man gets ‘dead’ smart TV on arrival from Flipkart, wins Rs 22,000 payout

A man who bought a Rs 5,999 Blaupunkt smart TV on Flipkart and found it “dead on arrival” has won a Rs 21,998 consumer court payout after spending months chasing a refund and replacement.

In a sharp rebuke to Flipkart, the manufacturer and the seller, an Andhra Pradesh consumer commission held that a television that never worked from the moment it was delivered was clearly defective and that consumers cannot be left stranded while companies pass the buck.

The Kakinada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising president Ch Raghupathy Vasantha Kumar and member Chakka Susi were hearing a complaint filed by one SK Feroz against Blaupunkt India Private Limited, Flipkart, seller Consulting Rooms Private Limited and OneAssist Consumer Solutions Private Limited.

“The product is DOA (Dead on Arrival) and ipso facto shows the product has an inherent manufacturing defect…When a platform prints its own branding on the invoice, processes payments, and routes customer service through its own ecosystem, it cannot claim to be a mere intermediary,” the commission said on June 8.

Bargain purchase, year-long battle

The dispute traces back to April 6, 2025, when Feroz purchased a Blaupunkt Sigma 24-inch HD Ready Smart Linux TV through Flipkart for Rs 5,999.On the same day, he also bought a Complete Appliance Protection Plan from OneAssist for Rs 999, taking the total spend to Rs 6,998.

According to the complaint, the television failed the very first test. As soon as it was connected to power after delivery, it was found to be non-functional. Feroz immediately approached Flipkart‘s customer support.The platform informed him that the issue had been escalated and assured him that it would be resolved by April 15, 2025. However, the promised resolution never came.

Emails, videos, repeated assurances

The consumer then reached out to Blaupunkt and shared the invoice and a video of the defective television after being asked to provide documents required for refund processing.The manufacturer acknowledged the complaint and later suggested troubleshooting steps through email. Feroz followed the instructions, but the television remained unusable.

Story continues below this ad

He continued to pursue the matter through emails and follow-ups throughout April and May 2025. The company repeatedly sought additional time, but neither a replacement nor a refund was provided. Frustrated by the lack of action, Feroz eventually approached the consumer commission, alleging deficiency in service and seeking refund and compensation.

Seller blames manufacturer

During the proceedings, Consulting Rooms Private Limited, the seller listed on Flipkart, denied liability and argued that it merely sold products supplied by manufacturers in sealed condition. The seller contended that any manufacturing defect could only be attributed to the manufacturer and its authorised service network. It also relied on earlier judicial precedents to argue that retailers cannot ordinarily be held responsible for manufacturing defects.However, the commission was not persuaded.

TV had inherent manufacturing defect

After examining the invoices, extended warranty documents and email correspondence placed on record, the Commission concluded that the television was dead on arrival and had never functioned from the moment it was delivered. “The TV was DOA (Dead on Arrival). The TV was non-functional immediately upon installation,” the commission said.

The bench noted that there was no evidence of misuse by the consumer and held that a television that is non-functional immediately upon installation clearly falls within the definition of a defective product under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Story continues below this ad

Referring to a Supreme Court ruling in Hyundai Motor India Limited vs Shailendra Bhatnagar, the commission said that manufacturers can be held liable for supplying defective products and found Blaupunkt responsible for supplying a television with an inherent manufacturing defect.

Why Flipkart was held liable

The commission said that e-commerce platforms are not mere passive intermediaries when they process payments, facilitate transactions and provide customer service channels for consumers.

Citing the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, the commission held that marketplace entities are obligated to ensure effective grievance redressal mechanisms and compliance by sellers operating on their platforms.

Since Flipkart was repeatedly approached by the consumer but failed to secure a resolution, it could not escape liability.

The commission added that where an online platform issues invoices, processes payments and routes customer support through its ecosystem, it assumes responsibilities that go beyond that of a neutral intermediary.

Seller also part of supply chain

The commission rejected the seller’s argument that it was merely a reseller. It noted that the seller had issued the tax invoice and formed part of the supply chain responsible for delivering goods to consumers. As such, it could not completely distance itself from liability when the product turned out to be defective from the outset. The commission held that the seller was responsible for the quality and condition of the goods supplied and therefore shared liability along with the manufacturer and marketplace platform.

Extended warranty provider gets relief

The only opposite party that escaped liability was OneAssist Consumer Solutions. The commission held that OneAssist merely provided an extended warranty plan, which would come into operation after the manufacturer’s warranty period. Since the defect arose immediately upon delivery and while the product was still covered by the manufacturer’s warranty, the company could not be held responsible.

Compensation awarded

Allowing the complaint in part, the commission directed Blaupunkt India, Flipkart and Consulting Rooms Private Limited to jointly and severally refund Rs 6,998 paid towards the television and protection plan. The commission directed to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and physical strain and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. The total relief awarded comes to Rs 21,998. The companies have been granted 45 days to comply with the order. If they fail to do so, the awarded amount will carry interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the order until realisation.

Story continues below this ad

Consumer takeaway

The ruling reinforces a growing trend in consumer jurisprudence that online marketplaces cannot simply point consumers towards manufacturers when products arrive defective. Where an e-commerce platform facilitates the sale, handles payments and receives complaints, consumer forums are increasingly willing to hold it accountable alongside manufacturers and sellers when buyers are left without a remedy.