Ludhiana: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has penalised an online shopping company and a Mumbai-based luxury brand for deficiency in service after a wrong product was sent to a customer. The commission ordered the opposite parties to pay a composite cost of ₹5,000 to the complainant, Ankit Toor of Model Town, Ludhiana. Besides, it ordered them to refund ₹8,415 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until the actual payment.As per the complaint, the complainant frequently purchased items through the online app. On April 29, 2023, he saw an offer from the luxury brand for a foreign perfume at a discounted price and booked the order. On May 7, 2023, he received a parcel, paying for it online. While opening it, he clicked photographs and was astonished to see a wrong product manufactured by another shopping platform. He emailed the helpline and made several calls to customer care requesting to collect the wrong item and supply the correct perfume. An email was also sent to the luxury brand, but they denied negligence and directed him back to the shopping app. 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, he 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.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 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 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.” It noted a deficiency in service, stating 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.
