Ordered 10 units of ghee but ‘got only 8’, man wins Rs 16,000 from online platform

It noted that the complainant immediately raised a complaint on the opposite party’s portal, sought return of the product, and later complained through the consumer helpline. The records showed that these complaints were closed without resolving the grievance.

‘Bought ghee worth Rs 4,440’

The complainant ordered 10 units of Govardhan pure cow ghee from an online shopping platform on March 15, 2024, for Rs 4,440. However, he received only eight units. He complained to the e-commerce company through its customer portal and later to the consumer helpline, and also sent a legal notice, but alleged that his grievance was not resolved.

The complainant then approached the district consumer commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties did not appear before the commission or file their reply, and the matter proceeded ex parte (unilaterally).

The commission examined the order/payment records, complaint records, and photographs of the parcel, which showed that the package contained eight rather than 10 units of ghee.

Delivery report failed to explain discrepancy: Order

The commission found that the complainant had paid Rs 4,440 for 10 units of ghee, but only eight units were delivered. The payment and order records supported his claim.

“The complainant stated in the complaint that he had ordered 10 units of ghee from the opposite party, but received only eight units. He lodged a complaint on the portal of the opposite party on March 16, 2024, and also requested that it take back the product. However, the opposite party closed the request and complaint without addressing the complainant’s request for return of the product or resolving his grievance. This is supported by the documentary evidence,” the order noted.

The commission noted that, instead of properly investigating the shortage, the opposite party relied only on the delivery agent’s digital report stating that the goods had been safely delivered and closed the complaint. It termed this conduct gross negligence, deficiency in service, and an unfair trade practice.

On the basis of the documentary evidence, it concluded that the opposite party had supplied fewer goods than the amount paid for and failed to resolve the complaint.

Takeaway

This judgment highlights that e-commerce platforms cannot rely solely on delivery records when a consumer provides evidence of shortage in delivery. They are expected to investigate and address such complaints properly. The ruling also reinforces that supplying fewer goods than paid for, coupled with failure to resolve the grievance, can amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Uttarakhand: 1800-180-4188) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

‘Promised’ Bangkok trip never happens, elderly couple wins Rs 65,000 from agency

Ordered Rs 10,000 phone but got ‘soap bars’, woman wins Rs 20,000 from online platform

‘Emergency treatment’ claim during US visit rejected, woman wins Rs 9 lakh from insurer