Paid for 100 kg quinoa seeds, got just 10 kg, Kerala man wins Rs 25,000 payout

Ordered 100 kg, received 10

According to the complainant, he placed an order on April 26, 2025, for 100 kg of quinoa seeds, 25 kg of sesame, 1 kg of amarantha rice (sample) and 1 kg of alasya seed. It was stated that he paid a total of Rs 13,063 through multiple transactions. He alleged that despite repeated follow-ups, the ordered goods were not delivered on time. The complainant stated that the seller initially claimed the products were out of stock and later said they had been dispatched to the wrong address. When a parcel finally arrived on May 30, 2025, it allegedly contained only 10 kg of quinoa seeds instead of the full order.

The complainant alleged that despite assurances that the remaining goods would be sent within hours, nothing was delivered thereafter, and the seller stopped responding to calls and messages. Feeling aggrieved, he moved the consumer commission, seeking a refund and compensation.

The opposite party denied the allegations, arguing that the complainant was not a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act. It further claimed that the only valid order was for 20 kg of flax seeds and 10 kg of quinoa seeds worth Rs 2,583, which it said had been dispatched and delivered through a logistics company.

The commission rejected these contentions. It observed that the seeds had been purchased for self-employment and livelihood and there was no evidence that they were intended for large-scale commercial activity. It therefore held that the complainant qualified as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

The bench also noted that while the complainant produced records showing payment of Rs 13,063, the seller failed to produce any evidence to substantiate its version of events. It concluded that the failure to supply the goods after receiving payment and the not refunding the amount constituted deficiency in service.

“We are of the view that the failure to supply goods after receiving consideration and failure to refund the payment for the goods constitutes a clear deficiency in service,” the order read.

The commission therefore directed the seller to refund Rs 12,213 for the undelivered goods, pay Rs 8,000 as compensation for the inconvenience caused and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs within 30 days.

Takeaway

The ruling reiterates that online sellers cannot evade liability after accepting payment by claiming stock shortages or dispatch errors. It also clarifies that a person purchasing goods for self-employment or livelihood qualify as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, provided the purchase is not for large-scale commercial activity.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and Union territories (Kerala: 1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.