5 min readNew DelhiJul 27, 2026 03:59 PM IST
A Kerala District Consumer Commission has awarded a total payout of Rs 36,880 to an assistant professor, nearly 17 months after an Instagram boutique failed to deliver one of two dresses she ordered in February 2025 for a family wedding, ruling that sellers operating through social media platforms are equally bound by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Kollam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission president S K Sreela and member Stanly Harold were hearing a complaint filed by Devi Priya R against Alankritha Boutique, an Ernakulam-based seller. The commission found the Instagram boutique guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to deliver one of the ordered dresses and not refunding the money despite repeated assurances.
“Consumer transactions carried on through social media platforms are equally governed by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. A seller who receives consideration through an online platform cannot evade liability by failing to supply the goods or by avoiding communication with the consumer after receiving payment,’ the commission said on July 17.
The dispute arose from what began as a routine online purchase for a family celebration. The complainant said she had ordered two dresses after seeing the boutique’s products advertised on Instagram, expecting them to arrive well before a close relative’s marriage. Instead, she faced repeated delays, broken promises, partial delivery and, ultimately, litigation to recover her money.
Instagram order
According to the complaint, Devi Priya, an assistant professor, came across the boutique’s Instagram stories advertising dresses and decided to place an order for two outfits. She transferred a total of Rs 3,760 through Google Pay on February 13 and 14, 2025, to the account named “Alamkrutha by Reshma Deepak”.
After receiving the payment, the Instagram boutique allegedly assured her that both dresses would be delivered by the last week of April 2025, in time for her relative’s wedding. However, delivery was postponed to the first week of May, and even then the dresses did not arrive.
The complainant alleged that despite repeated follow-ups, the Instagram boutique avoided her calls and failed to respond properly to her messages. On May 10, 2025, she was allegedly informed that both dresses had already been dispatched and would reach her the following day. Contrary to that assurance, only one dress was delivered on May 14, 2025, while the second dress never arrived.
Story continues below this ad
She further claimed that despite repeated requests, the Instagram seller neither supplied the remaining dress nor refunded its cost. The complaint also stated that the Instagram boutique had promised to refund 50 per cent of the amount by June 10, 2025, but no refund was made. During a WhatsApp voice call on May 21, 2025, the complainant alleged that she was told no refund would be issued and that she was free to initiate legal proceedings.
Because the dresses did not arrive before the wedding, she said she was forced to purchase alternative outfits at a higher price, causing financial loss, inconvenience and mental distress.
Boutique stayed away from proceedings
The commission noted that the notice sent to the Instagram boutique was returned with the postal endorsement “Unclaimed”, thereby creating a legal presumption of proper service. Despite being treated as duly served, the boutique neither appeared before the commission nor filed its defence.
Consequently, the matter proceeded ex parte, and the complainant’s evidence remained unchallenged. The commission relied on online payment receipts showing the transfer of Rs 3,760, along with electronic communications between the parties.
Story continues below this ad
These records, it observed, established that the seller had repeatedly assured delivery, delayed it several times, ultimately supplied only one dress and later failed to honour its promise of refund.
Commission’s findings
- Holding the boutique liable, the commission observed that once the seller accepted the full payment, it became legally bound either to deliver the products within the agreed period or refund the consideration if delivery was not possible.
- It held that the complete non-delivery of one dress, coupled with the significant delay in delivering the other despite repeated promises, amounted to deficiency in service.
- Retaining the consumer’s money without supplying the goods and then failing to refund it also constituted an unfair trade practice, the commission said.
The commission directed the boutique to pay a total of Rs 36,880 to the complainant, comprising Rs 1,880 as refund for the undelivered dress, Rs 25,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony and inconvenience, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs. The commission further ordered that the amount be paid within 45 days, failing which it will carry 9 per cent annual interest from the date of default until realisation.
Consumer takeaway
Shopping through Instagram or any other social media platform offers the same legal protection as buying from a regular store, and sellers can be held liable for non-delivery, delays and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
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.
