Consumer Commission Penalizes Online Retailer and Luxury Brand for Service Deficiency
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ludhiana has imposed penalties on an online shopping company and a Mumbai-based luxury brand for significant service deficiencies. This ruling came after a customer received an incorrect product instead of the ordered foreign perfume.
Details of the Complaint and Commission's Order
The commission has directed both parties to pay a composite compensation of ₹5,000 to the complainant, Ankit Toor, a resident of Model Town in Ludhiana. Additionally, they must refund ₹8,415 to Toor with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until actual payment is made.
Sequence of Events Leading to the Complaint
According to the complaint, Ankit Toor frequently purchased items through the online shopping application. On April 29, 2023, he noticed an offer from the luxury brand for a foreign perfume at a discounted price and promptly placed an order. The parcel arrived on May 7, 2023, and Toor paid for it online. Upon opening the package and taking photographs, he was astonished to discover a wrong product manufactured by another shopping platform.
Toor immediately contacted the helpline via email and made several calls to customer care, requesting the collection of the incorrect item and the delivery of the correct perfume. He also sent an email to the luxury brand, but they denied any negligence and redirected him back to the shopping application.
Despite lodging multiple complaints on the consumer portal on May 9, 10, 15, and 26, 2023, no action was taken, and no refund was issued. Claiming mental agony and torture, Toor sent a legal notice on August 2, 2023. Receiving no response, he applied for a refund of ₹8,415, compensation of ₹50,000, and litigation expenses of ₹11,000.
Defense Arguments and Commission's Observations
In its written statement, the online shopping company claimed the product was shipped in intact condition via open box delivery after a successful quality check. They argued that the customer should not have accepted a different product and that the return request was rightly declined as the allegations were false and without basis. The luxury fashion company failed to appear before the commission and was proceeded against ex-parte.
After appreciating the evidence, the commission observed, "It is very strange that professional companies closed the complaint by observing that the customer had already proceeded with legal action. Had the opposite party acted in accordance with the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020, this complaint would not have arisen."
The commission noted a clear deficiency in service, stating that the parties cannot escape liability as they actively participated in the promotion and sale but failed to redress the grievance within the stipulated period. Terming it an unfair trade practice, the commission ruled that a refund of ₹8,415 along with ₹5,000 composite compensation would be just and appropriate.
