Back
and Seller Held Liable for Delivery Error and Refund Denial: Darjeeling
In a significant ruling concerning online marketplace accountability, the , has held Seller Services Private Ltd. and its seller, , for and . The commission directed the companies to refund the purchase price of a high-end camera and pay substantial compensation to the complainant for mental agony and professional negligence.
The Botched Delivery The dispute stems from an order placed by the complainant, Soloman Lepcha, for a Fujifilm X-T5 mirrorless camera valued at Rs. 1,43,000. Upon delivery, the complainant discovered that instead of the high-performance X-T5, he had received the lower-tier Fujifilm X-T50 model. Photographic evidence submitted to the commission revealed that the package bore two conflicting labels—one identifying the contents as an X-T50, while a smaller sticker labeled it as an X-T5.
Despite the obvious error, the ordeal intensified when the complainant returned the product. While the seller acknowledged receipt of the returned item, the service providers refused the refund, making unfounded allegations that the complainant had returned a "used and damaged" product, rather than acknowledging the initial shipping error.
The Legal Battle The case proceeded after both and the seller failed to appear before the Commission despite being duly served with notices. By failing to contest the matter, the effectively allowed the complainant’s evidence—including email correspondence and photographic proof of the conflicting labels—to remain .
During the proceedings, the commission examined the complainant's claim that , as a marketplace operator, holds direct control over logistics, payments, and return processes. The commission found no merit in the defense raised in the email correspondence by the companies, noting that their reluctance to issue a refund despite having custody of the returned, unopened/incorrect product constituted a clear instance of .
Key Observations The Commission’s final order emphasized the helplessness of the consumer in the face of automated-corporate denial. Key remarks from the judgment include:
"Failure of the O.Ps to appear and contest the case has rendered the case of the complainant ."
"There is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. There is also nothing to disbelieve the documents filed by the complainant has those documents remained unchallenged."
"We are of the view that the complainants have been able to made out their case against the O.Ps and they are entitled to get the relief as prayed for."
The Verdict and Its Implications The Commission, presided over by Sri Tikendra Narayan Pradhan and member Smt. Bhawana Thakur, ordered the following relief to be provided within 45 days: * Refund: Rs. 1,43,000 towards the cost of the order. * Compensation for Mental Harassment: Rs. 2,00,000. * Compensation for Negligence/Deficiency: Rs. 1,00,000. * Litigation Costs: Rs. 25,000.
All awarded sums are subject to interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization. This judgment serves as a stern warning to e-commerce giants that automated responses and arbitrary rejection of refund claims will not shield them from when evidence of systemic negligence is presented. For consumers in the Darjeeling region and beyond, the case underscores the viability of the as a robust mechanism for holding digital marketplaces accountable.
