SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3279

Date of Institution : 09.01.2026


Date of Final Hearing : 24.04.2026


Date of Pronouncement : 01.05.2026


BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:KURNOOL


Present:


Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar, B.A., B.L., President


Sri N.Narayana Reddy, B.A., B.L., Member


And


Smt S.Nazima Kausar, PGDBM., M.Com., MBA., B.Ed., Member


Friday the 1st day of May, 2026


CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.18/2026


Between


Kodila Krishan Chaitanya,


S/o K.Raghavendra Prasad,


Aged 36 Years,


D.No.25/700,Parimala Nilaya,


Sreenivasa Nagar,


Nandyal-518501.


…COMPLAINANT


(In Person)


-Vs-


PERFUME 24 X 7.COM,


Through its Chief Executive Officer,


Having a Retail outlet at City Center Mall,


Address: Level 1, Road No.1,


Banjara Hills, Hyderabad,


Telangana-500034.


...OPPOSITE PARTY


...(Absent)

ORDER

(As Per Karanam Kishore Kumar, President, on behalf of the Bench)

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.18/2026

1. This complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, praying to direct the opposite party:-

A. To allow the present complaint and hold that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, breach of contract, and negligence under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

B. To refund a sum of Rs.2,749/- being the amount paid by the complainant for the wrongly delivered products.

C. To pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony, stress, harassment, inconvenience, hardship, and consequential losses suffered due to the acts and omissions of the opposite party.

D. To pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amounts awarded from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment.

E. To pay litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the complainant towards expenses incurred in pursuing the present complaint.

F. To impose a penalty/fine of Rs.5,00,000/- on the opposite party for its unfair and misleading conduct, with a direction that the said amount be credited to the District Consumer Commission Welfare Fund, so as to deter such practices and protect other consumers from similar hardship in future.

And

G. Topass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest, equity and consumer welfare.

2. The case of the complainant in brief runs as follows:-The complainant is a resident of Parimala Nilaya, Sreenivasa Nagar, Nandyal. The opposite party is Perfume 24x7.com, represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad.On 15.11.2025. The complainant placed an online order with the opposite party for (i) Jovan Musk Cologne for Men (88 ml) and (ii) Jovan White Musk Cologne for Men (88 ml), under Order No. P24738293, by paying a total sum of Rs.2,479/- . The opposite party dispatched the said order on 17.11.2025 under Shipment ID No. 76700423612, and the consignment was delivered to the complainant at Nandyal on 20.11.2025.

At the time of opening the package, the complainant recorded a continuous unboxing video on 21.11.2025 at about 4:48 P.M. The said video clearly shows the unopened outer cover being opened, followed by a “Perfume 24x7” branded carton box, inside which entirely different products were found, namely (a) Lomani Body and Soul Eau De Toilette (100 ml) and (b) Roger & Gallet Open Eau De Toilette (100 ml).

Thus, the products delivered were completely different from those ordered by the complainant. The complainant immediately informed the opposite party on 21.11.2025 through email and WhatsApp and shared the unboxing video along with photographs as proof of incorrect delivery. The opposite party acknowledged the complaint and assured that the matter would be reviewed and resolved. However, despite repeated follow-ups through email, phone calls, and WhatsApp messages, the opposite party failed to provide any written response or effective resolution.

On 04.12.2025, the complainant received a phone call from a customer care executive offering a conditional credit note equivalent to the order value, subject to a minimum purchase of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant requested written confirmation of the same via email; however, no such confirmation was provided. Thereafter, the opposite party continued to insist only on issuing a conditional credit note, imposed a time limit of 24 hours for its validity, refused to provide written confirmation, and denied refund or replacement of the products. Even after approaching the owner of the opposite party and lodging a grievance with the National Consumer Helpline, no satisfactory resolution was provided.

In its response before the said authority, the opposite party denied responsibility and questioned the authenticity of the unboxing video, despite clear and cogent evidence. It is submitted that the opposite party

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top