The liability of e-commerce platforms as intermediaries in transactions depends on proper adherence to complaint handling and resolution procedures under consumer protection laws.

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties with regard to the Service deficiency in Supplying a Wrong product i.e., SKIIE Street Jeans Wear instead BAESD Women Black Flared High — Rise Jeans along with a prayer to refund of Rs.495/- paid by the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Complainant purchased a product from the opposite party’s online shopping platform, Myntra on 22.12.2024. The complainant placed an order for a Women Black Flared High-Rise Jeans from the brand BAESD with order No.12866770-3495299-2303403 on the Myntra platform. The total amount paid for the order was Rs.495/-. On 28.12.2024 the product was delivered by Navya Hosiery. However, upon opening the package the complainant discovered that the delivered product was completely different from what was ordered. Instead of the BAESD Women Black Flared High-Rise Jeans, the complainant received SKIIE STREET Jeans Wear which was neither ordered nor expected. Upon receiving the wrong product the complainant immediately tried to initiate a refund or exchange request from the help centre on 04.01.2025 from the opposite party’s platform. The said complaint lasted for 4 days but the return or refund was denied by the opposite party without any valid reason. It was pertinent to note that the complainant spoke with the customer service executive nearly for an hour for exchange or refund of the product on 12.01.2025 but no corrective action was taken by the opposite parties. Thus the complainant issued a legal notice on 17.02.2025 demanding a resolution within seven days but they failed to respond. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-

3.The opposite parties filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the present complaint was specific and centric only to the seller. Thus, the 1% opposite party was not able to ascertain the complainant’s grievance. Moreover, the complainant failed to implead the seller i.e., Navya Hosiery in the present complaint. The whole grievance of the complainant pertains to an alleged delivery of the wrong product instead of the ordered product. The fact needs to be recorded was that the product was purchased from a third party seller, who sold the product to the complainant and supplied it through third party Logistic service provider. Thus the 1° opposite party never came in possession of the actually ordered product or the alleged wrong product at any point in time. When the complainant raised his grievance with the 1% opposite party, the 1 opposite party duly escalated the grievance of the complainant to the seller and tried to resolve the grievance of the complainant by giving proper resolution as much as the 1° opposite party can do in its intermediary capacity. However, the independent third party seller alleged that the complainant has been given the right product in the intact condition. The same was intimated to the complainant then and there only. It was pertinent to mention that the sole discretion to return or replace the product lies in the hands of the seller and the 1% opposite party has no role to pay in between.