Location/place: India
Name of company/service: STUDENT.
ON THE SEVENTEENTH OF JANUARY, 2013, MR. MITRA PLACED AN ORDER FOR TWO COMBO PACKS OF YONEX MAVIS SHUTTLES, NYLON, PACK OF SIX, THEN POSTED PRICE AT FLIPKART: 1649/-. FOLLOWING THE NON-DELIVERY OF THE ORDER ON THE 23RD OF JANUARY, THE POSTED DATE ON THE ORDERS SECTION OF “MY ACCOUNT” ON FLIPKART WEBISTE, CONTACT WITH FLIPKART BY MR.
MITRA ELICITED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION, SHUTTLE ORDERS WERE SUBJECT TO AN INTERNAL LIMIT OF FOUR. THAT IS, HIS ORDER HAD BEEN INTERNALLY DIS-APPROVED OR UNDER THE PROCEDURE OF DIS-APPROVAL BECAUSE HIS ORDER, FOR 6 PACKS OF SHUTTLES (EACH CONTAINING SIX SHUTTLES) HAD EXCEEDED SOME INTERNAL SHIPMENT LIMIT. THIS LIMIT IS HOWEVER, MENTIONED NOWHERE ON THE FLIPKART WEBISTE. HOW IS ANY CUSTOMER SUPPOSED TO BE CONVERSANT WITH THIS LIMIT IF IT IS UNDISCLOSED? THIS IS HOWEVER, ONLY THE FIRST INSTANCE OF WHAT CAN ONLY BE TERMED AS SOME INTERNAL MIS-MANAGEMENT ON THE PART OF FLIPKART. FOLLOWING THIS, AFTER REPEATED ASSURANCE OF THE “CUSTOMER CARE EXECUTIVES” AT FLIPKART, MR. MITRA WAS ADVISED TO RE-ORDER THE SAME ORDER AS TWO SEPARATE ORDERS FOR THE SAME COMBO PACK. THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY REPLICATE HIS EARLIER ORDER AND BE COMPLIANT WITH ANY INTERNAL LIMIT, THEY SAID. HOWEVER, SOON AFTER THIS ORDER WAS PLACED, FLIPKART STARTED CALLING HIM TO CONFIRM THE LEGITIMACY OF THE SAME ORDER BEING PLACED TWICE AND TO ASCERTAIN WITH CERTAINTY OF ITS NOT BEING A WEBSITE DIS-ORDER. HOWEVER, INSPITE OF SUCH REPEATED CONFIRMATIONS OF THE ACCURACY OF THE ORDER, THE ORDER WAS AGAIN NOT DELIVERED ON THE SHIPMENT DATE AND FURTHER EXCHANGES OF CONVERSATION WITH FLIPKART PROVED FUTILE IN ARRIVING AT ANY RESOLUTION AFTER WHICH FLIPKART ABANDONED ANY RESOLUTION PROCEDURE. MR. MITRA HAS NOT BEEN CONTACTED BY FLIPKART AFTER THE FIRST WEEK OF FEBRUARY, EXCEPT FOR ONE PHONE CALL WHOSE LEGITIMACY IS IN SEVERE QUESTION, IT BEING NEITHER OFFICIAL OR ACCURATE. FURTHER PRICES HAVE NOW BEEN REVISED UPWARDS ON THE WEBSITE FOLLOWING THE LAST UNSUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION WITH FLIPKART. NOT ONLY WAS THE PRODUCT NOT DELIVERED ON TIME, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN DELIVERED AT ALL, AND THE PROCESS OF DELIVERY HAS BEEN STRETCHED OVER A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH, STARTING FROM THE SEVENTEENTH OF JANUARY. THE CONSUMER, MR MITRA HAS BEEN HARASSED AND DRAGGED THROUGH A MESSY ISSUE REGARDING PROBLEMS OF FLIPKART, TECHNICAL ERRORS AND GROSS MISMANAGEMENT OF DELIVERY BY THE ONLINE MEGA-STORE. OF COURSE, THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS MR. MITRA HAS INSISTED COUNTLESS TIMES AND AGREED TO FLIPKART’S DESIRE FOR A RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER, HE INFORMS WITH THE DEEPEST REGRET THAT ALL HIS ENDEAVORS FOR A REASONABLE SOLUTION HAS BEEN THWARTED AND ONLY AFTER A MONTH OF SUCH HARASSMENT AND DELAY HAS HE BEEN PUT ON THE SPOT TO FILE A COMPLAINT HERE.
Leave a Reply