An e-commerce platform and an affiliated merchant have been directed to pay Rs 18,514 to a consumer after delivering an unusable dummy device instead of the mobile phone she bought for her child’s classes, a district consumer forum in Kerala has ruled.
The Alappuzha District Consumer Commission held both the e-commerce firm and the vendor accountable for service deficiency and unfair commercial practices. The bench, comprising Commission President Sholy P. R. and member Lekhamma C. K., determined that the retail portal could not escape liability for logistical failures after exercising end-to-end control over warehousing, packaging, and shipping.
Under the order issued on August 13, the shopping platform must refund the consumer Rs 11,514, provide Rs 6,000 in damages for mental distress and inconvenience, and contribute Rs 1,000 toward her litigation expenses within 30 days.
Rejection Of Marketplace Immunity Defense
During the proceedings, the online shopping company resisted liability by comparing its business model to a commercial shopping mall. Its representative argued that marketplace operators merely host third-party merchants, asserting that buyers complete transactions directly with individual vendors and must seek redress from those sellers when goods prove defective.
The commission dismissed that contention, observing that the platform’s role extended well past that of a passive middleman. Because the company warehoused the inventory, managed order processing, and coordinated delivery through its courier network, the bench ruled that it bore direct responsibility for the shipment’s integrity.
The forum further noted that the platform presented no evidence or explanation to clarify why the parcel arrived containing an invoice registered to an entirely different customer, concluding that the billing error reflected administrative negligence.
Failed Return Followed Borrowed Funds
The grievance originated from an order placed on August 25, 2025, when the complainant purchased a smartphone priced at Rs 11,499 to support her child’s schooling. According to her submission, she had secured high-interest private loans to finance the purchase and handed over the full payment upon delivery.
Upon unboxing the package, the woman discovered a display dummy bearing a different brand name alongside a sales receipt made out to another buyer. When she alerted customer support to request a replacement or reimbursement, her attempts to lodge a formal return through the portal were blocked on the grounds that the inventory was out of stock.
Suspecting fraud after being denied both a replacement and a refund, the buyer brought the dispute before the district consumer panel, depositing the dummy unit as physical evidence.
Ex-Parte Proceedings Against Seller
The merchant named in the complaint failed to instruct legal representation or enter an appearance, prompting the forum to adjudicate the grievance in the vendor’s absence.
In its final determination, the bench emphasised that retail platforms cannot evade obligations toward consumers while handling order fulfillment. The commission also granted the e-commerce enterprise permission to collect the deposited dummy device from forum custody once the financial directions are fulfilled.
