An e-commerce platform has been directed by the Rangareddy District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Telangana to refund Rs 17,839 with interest and pay Rs 10,000 in damages and costs to an advocate after refusing his refund following a product return.
The commission ruled that an e-commerce firm cannot withhold both the returned goods and the buyer’s payment, finding the company liable for a deficiency in service.
Lack Of Continuous Proof At Inspection
In an order issued on September 21, a bench comprising President Chitneni Latha Kumar and members D Madhavi Latha and Kathyayani Khandavilli held that the platform failed to produce an uninterrupted record connecting the condition of the package at pickup with its condition during subsequent inspection. Consequently, the commission ruled that the company could not substantiate its claims of product damage or missing components against the consumer.
The bench also rejected the platform’s contention that its status as an intermediary exempted it from liability, stating that intermediary protections do not relieve a marketplace of responsibility for the services actually executed through its portal. Because the merchandise remained with the seller while the refund was denied, the commission deemed the retention of both money and merchandise legally unsustainable.
Timeline Of The Purchase And Rejection
The case arose from a complaint filed by a 38-year-old advocate, represented by counsel B Akash Kumar. The advocate purchased a pair of sunglasses on August 5, 2023, for Rs 17,839 and received the consignment on August 9, 2023. Upon examining the item, he found its quality and genuineness deficient and submitted a cancellation and return request on August 15, 2023.
On August 19, 2023, a delivery representative from the platform visited the advocate’s residence, verified the product, and collected it. However, later that same day, the platform sent an email stating that the sunglasses had failed its quality-check standards and declined to process the refund.
The advocate maintained that the return passed physical inspection at handover and that any subsequent damage or discrepancies arose during transit, handling, or mismanagement by company personnel. He subsequently approached the consumer forum citing unfair trade practices and deficiency in service.
Intermediary Defence Rejected
Appearing for the e-commerce platform, advocate G MadhuSudhan Kumar argued that the platform acts purely as an intermediary facilitating transactions between independent third-party vendors and buyers, meaning the underlying contract of sale exists exclusively between the vendor and the purchaser.
The platform presented packaging footage alongside return-inspection video recordings, alleging that the returned sunglasses exhibited scratches, bore signs of prior use, and lacked original packaging elements, including an outer branded box, a glass case, and two insert cards. The company further asserted that the complaint was an attempt to damage its standing and claim unjustified benefits.
Breakdown Of Relief Ordered
Finding that the evidence failed to prove the advocate was responsible for any defect or missing packaging, the commission directed the platform to refund the purchase amount of Rs 17,839 alongside 9 per cent annual interest from August 19, 2023, until realization.
The commission also awarded the complainant Rs 5,000 as compensation for the service deficiency and inconvenience of pursuing redressal, along with Rs 5,000 toward litigation expenses, bringing the total ordered payout to Rs 27,839 plus accrued interest.
