Returned product, but no refund
The man claimed that he ordered a pair of sunglasses from the platform on August 5, 2023, after paying an amount of Rs 17,839 and received it on August 9, 2023. Upon receiving and examining the sunglasses, he was not satisfied with their quality and genuineness and, therefore, requested cancellation and return of the product on August 15, 2023.
He added that the e-commerce platform’s delivery executive visited his residence on August 19, 2023, verified the sunglasses and took them back. However, on the same day, the e-commerce platform allegedly informed him through email that the returned sunglasses did not meet its prescribed quality-check standards and it could not process his refund.
The man subsequently claimed that the returned sunglasses had failed the quality check only after the product was received by the e-commerce platform. He said any damage or discrepancy noticed thereafter could have occurred during transportation, handling or due to mismanagement by the platform’s delivery personnel.
Aggrieved, he moved the commission seeking a refund and compensation, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the e-commerce platform. The man was represented by advocate B Akash Kumar before the commission.
Story continues below this ad
E-commerce platform’s defence
The platform, through its advocate G MadhuSudhan Kumar, submitted that the platform merely facilitates transactions between independent sellers and purchasers. The actual contract of sale is between the seller and the purchaser and the platform functions only as an intermediary, he added.
He relied upon a comparison between the seller’s packing video and the video of the product returned by the complainant. It was alleged that the returned sunglasses contained scratches and appeared to have been used. It was further alleged that certain accessories, namely the outer branded box, glass cover and two cards, were missing when the product was returned.
The e-commerce platform also claimed that the complaint was filed to malign its reputation and obtain unauthorised or unjustified benefits.
‘Damage not proved to be caused by consumer’
The commission found that there was no uninterrupted record sufficiently connecting the condition of the parcel at handover with the condition subsequently shown during inspection. It therefore held that the allegations against the complainant could not be treated as established.
Story continues below this ad
It also clarified that the e-commerce platform’s argument that it was merely an intermediary did not absolve it from responsibility for the service actually rendered through its platform.
The commission noted that the evidence on record did not sufficiently establish that the alleged damage or missing accessories were attributable to the complainant. It further noted that the product remained with the seller after the refund was rejected.
“Withholding both the returned sunglasses and the consideration of Rs 17,839 cannot be sustained and amounts to deficiency in service,” the commission said.
Accordingly, the commission directed the company to refund Rs 17,839 together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from August 19, 2023 till realisation. It also directed the company to pay Rs 5,000 towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs 5,000 towards costs of the proceedings.
Story continues below this ad
Takeaway
This ruling highlights that an e-commerce platform cannot deny a refund after accepting a returned product unless it can establish that the alleged damage was caused by the consumer.
Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Telangana: 0771-2582902) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
