JioMart marks Rs 115 battery order ‘returned’ without delivery, pays Rs 3,500 compensation

“Usually, lawyers are fighting and contesting the cases in a sharp manner for the benefit and welfare of the clients and give redressal to the grievances of their clients. Complainant’s case has been defeated by the opposite parties by their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant had been subjected to profound mental agony extreme frustration and financial hardship due to the gross deficient act systematically adopted by the opposite parties,” the May 30 order said.

The complainant placed a prepaid order from Jio Mart for the purchase of “Nippo Gold AA 2 UM 3DG Extra Heavy Duty Batteries (Pack of 10)”.

Order marked returned without delivery

• The complainant is a responsible citizen and a practising advocate, and the opposite party is JioMart, an Indian e-commerce platform owned by Reliance Retail, launched in 2019. 
• The complainant availed the service of the opposite parties through their online platform Jio Mart, with the legitimate expectation of receiving the goods in proper condition and in accordance with law. 
• The complainant placed a prepaid order through the online platform Jio Mart for the purchase of “Nippo Gold AA 2 UM 3DG Extra Heavy Duty Batteries (Pack of 10)”. 
• The said order was registered, and the complainant duly paid a sum of Rs 115 through a UPI transaction, which was successfully received by the online platform. 
• On September 20, 2025, JioMart processed and shipped the said order through their delivery associate at about 4:17 PM with a delivery confirmation code. 
• Shockingly, instead of delivering the prepaid product, the said delivery associate, without authority or consent, returned the product arbitrarily, stating “Order Rejected”. 
• JioMart, without justification, updated the status of the order as “Returned” at about 4:17 PM itself on their portal, even before the alleged return process, without ever delivering the goods to the complainant. 
• Such an act of JioMart amounts to negligence and caused severe mental agony and financial hardship to the complainant, notwithstanding the meagre transaction value.
• The complainant was deprived of the goods for which he had lawfully paid and reposed confidence in JioMart. 
• Despite repeated follow-ups and demands, the refund of Rs 115 was not made. 
• It was pertinent to submit that JioMart refunded the said amount only after receipt of the legal notice dated September 22, 2025, which clearly shows their negligence, arbitrary conduct, and lack of bona fides. 
• The arbitrary return of a prepaid order without authorisation constitutes a clear deficiency in service and amounts to an unfair trade practice, reflecting an unfair and mala fide method of conduct. 

‘JioMart failed to refund amount’

The Kollam Consumer Court observed that the cause of action first arose on September 20, 2025, when the delivery associate arbitrarily returned the order and marked it as “returned” and “order rejected” without the complainant’s consent. 

It was observed that the cause of action continued as JioMart initially failed to refund the amount and did so only after receiving the legal notice, which was otherwise avoidable had they acted responsibly. 

The commission said that JioMart has also failed to compensate the complainant for the undue hardship, inconvenience and harassment caused, which amounts to deliberate deficiency of service and adoption of unfair trade practices, causing serious mental agony and financial inconvenience to the complainant. 

Noting that JioMart had failed to file a version within the statutory time, the commission said that the complaint will be proceeded against JioMart ex parte without their version. 

Reiterating the averments, the commission noted the supporting documents produced by the complainant, including the copy of the order confirmation, UPI transaction, the screenshot/proof of the order status “Returned” was rejected from Jio Mart Portal and the legal notice issued to JioMart.

‘Complainant is lawyer’

The commission noted that the complainant is a practising lawyer in Pathanamthitta and he is a prominent leader of the ruling party in the central ministry, and had a wide range of cases in various courts in Pathanamthitta, Kollam and Kottarakkara. 

The complainant had placed the order for extremely heavy-duty batteries in good faith, that JioMart would deliver promptly, and being a lawyer, did not think that JioMart would commit such a deficient act. 

The court noted that the complainant had been subjected to profound mental agony, extreme frustration and financial hardship due to the grossly deficient act systematically adopted by the opposite parties. 

Despite placing a prepaid order through the Jio Mart online platform and dutifully paying for the item, the complainant’s legitimate expectations were shattered when the delivery associate, arbitrarily and without any authorisation or consent, blocked the delivery and falsely marked the order as “returned” and ” rejected”, the court observed.

The emotional and psychological toll of this ordeal was severely aggravated by the fact that this was not an isolated occurrence, as the complainant has faced similarly distressing and unprofessional experiences with JioMart on previous occasions, the commission added.

The commission said although the monetary transaction value was small, the absolute lack of bona fides and high-handedness of the platform forced the complainant to endure the undue hardship of continuous futile follow-ups and demands.

The commission said that adding insult to injury, JioMart callously withheld the complainant’s money and flatly refused to issue a refund until they were served with a formal legal notice, an escalation that could have been entirely avoided. 

This persistent indifference, calculated evasion and deliberate harassment have caused deep mental agony and significant financial inconvenience to the complainant, legally necessitating a justifiable claim as compensation to address the profound personal strain and systemic hardship inflicted, the commission added.

‘JioMart guilty of unfair trade practices’

The commission, considering the submissions and evidence on record, said it was clear that JioMart was guilty of deficiency in service, and the complainant had successfully established deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. 

In the aforementioned view, the commission held that the complainant was entitled to costs and reasonable compensation for the clear deficiency in service of JioMart in not redressing his grievance. 

The commission allowed the complaint and directed JioMart to pay an amount of Rs 2,500 towards compensation for the immense hardships, mental distress and financial distress suffered by the complainant, and to pay Rs 1000 as litigation cost.

The commission granted 45 days for compliance from the date of a copy of this order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest at 10 per cent per annum and the complainant can also initiate execution proceedings in accordance with law. 

Consumer takeaway from case

The ruling underscores that a consumer cannot be deprived of their right to claim when they have produced all the documents in favour of their case. It highlights that JioMart failed to discharge its duty in accordance with the due standard, and marked the order as “returned” without delivering the product, causing mental agony to a lawyer.

In this case, the commission directed JioMart to pay Rs 3,500 as compensation and the expenses incurred in pursuing the proceedings, reaffirming the consumer’s entitlement to redress the grievance of survival.

Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Kollam helpline: 0474-2795063  ) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.