The Kannur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed an e-commerce website to pay Rs 22,734 to a woman who was forced to pay twice for a mattress after the platform failed to acknowledge her initial online payment.
Holding the website responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the commission ordered it to refund Rs 7,734, pay Rs 10,000 for mental agony and reimburse Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.
The commission, comprising President Ravi Susha and Members Molykutty Mathew and Sajeesh KP, passed the order on October 9 after examining the payment records and submissions of the parties.
Payment Debited but Order Not Processed
The dispute arose from a mattress purchased through an e-commerce platform on October 1, 2024. The complainant had paid for the product using a digital payments application and expected delivery within a week.
Although the amount was deducted from her bank account, the website maintained that it had not received the payment and declined to deliver the mattress.
The woman subsequently made another payment to obtain the product. However, her attempts to recover the amount deducted during the first transaction went unanswered.
She approached the consumer commission seeking relief over the unrecovered payment and the inconvenience caused by the website’s response.
Website Denied Receiving First Payment
Advocates Sandeep Sukumaran and Vivek PK, representing the e-commerce platform, disputed its liability. They maintained that the website functioned merely as an intermediary and that the complainant had been affected by a false debit transaction.
According to the platform, its records contained no evidence of the disputed payment, and the amount deducted from the woman’s account had never reached it.
Kerala Gramin Bank, represented by Advocate TP Ramachandran, presented a different account. The bank submitted that the disputed amount had been credited to the e-commerce website’s account and had not been automatically reversed.
The bank’s counsel further submitted that the turnaround time for UPI transactions was one day. Under the National Payments Corporation of India framework, the website’s beneficiary bank should have returned the amount within that period, failing which the complainant became entitled to compensation.
Advocate AK Sajithkumar, appearing for the digital payments application, explained that the payment was classified as a peer-to-external-merchant transaction.
He submitted that the application operated only as a third-party service provider within the UPI system. Since the money had reached the website’s bank account, responsibility for issuing a refund or delivering the product rested with the e-commerce platform.
Commission Finds Website Responsible for Unresolved Transaction
After reviewing the complainant’s bank statement, the commission found that the disputed payment had been transferred to the e-commerce website’s account.
It also took note of the disappearance of the relevant order details from the platform after the woman raised her complaint.
The commission found that the website had failed to verify the transaction with its bank despite receiving information from the digital payments application that could have helped trace the payment.
It observed that the complainant had suffered financial loss and mental agony because the website neither supplied the product against the initial payment nor returned the money.
The commission concluded that the platform was directly responsible for resolving the grievance and could not avoid liability by denying receipt of the transaction.
Refund and Compensation Ordered
Holding only the e-commerce website liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the commission directed it to pay the complainant a total of Rs 22,734.
The amount comprises a refund of Rs 7,734, compensation of Rs 10,000 for mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.
