Back
When Online Perfume Orders Go Sour: Kurnool Court Hits Retailer with Rs 2 Lakh Penalty
In a decisive ruling for e-commerce consumers, the —presided over by Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar (President), alongside members Sri N. Narayana Reddy and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar —has held Perfume 24x7.com liable for delivering entirely wrong products. The bench ordered a full refund, compensation for distress, litigation costs, and a hefty Rs 2,00,000 in to be paid to the . This decision underscores the perils of sloppy online fulfillment and evasive customer service.
A Scent-sational Order Turns Nightmare
Kodila Krishan Chaitanya, a Nandyal resident, placed an online order on , with Perfume 24x7.com for two specific colognes: Jovan Musk (88 ml) and Jovan White Musk (88 ml) , shelling out Rs 2,479 . The package arrived on , shipped via ID 76700423612. But the unboxing on —captured in a timestamped video—revealed a rude surprise: Lomani Body and Soul (100 ml) and Roger & Gallet Open (100 ml) instead.
Chaitanya promptly fired off emails, WhatsApp messages, and photos as proof, chasing resolution through calls and even contacting the store owner. The retailer acknowledged but dragged its feet, offering only a conditional credit note for Rs 2,479—valid for 24 hours and requiring a Rs 5,000 minimum next purchase . No refunds, no replacements, no written confirmations. Escalation to the yielded denials and video authenticity jabs. Products vanished from the site post-complaint, and chats hinted at resolution only if the consumer backed off the legal fight.
Filed on , as Complaint No. 18/2026 under the , the case hit final hearing on , with judgment on .
Lone Fighter vs. No-Show Seller
Chaitanya argued , , , and . Evidence included order invoice (Ex.A1), payment proof (Ex.A2), tracking (Ex.A3), the pivotal unboxing video (Ex.A4 on pen drive), screenshots (Ex.A5), complaint emails/WhatsApp (Ex.A6-A7, A10), NCH reply (Ex.A8), and site shots (Ex.A9). He sought refund, Rs 50,000 compensation , 12% interest, Rs 10,000 costs , and Rs 5 lakh penalty .
Perfume 24x7.com? Absent. Despite notices, no version filed, no appearance—set . Their prior NCH stance questioned evidence, but unchallenged proofs sealed the case.
Video Evidence Seals the Deal, Precedents Back the Bite
The Commission zeroed in on undisputed payment and irrefutable mismatch, hailing the unboxing video's evidentiary value . Supplying wrong goods? Clear deficiency and breach . Seller's credit-note gambit and evasion tactics screamed , eroding consumer rights.
Drawing from Appeal No. 279/2019 (SC), : Myntra Designs Pvt Ltd v. Monika Thakur ()—where wrong-color delivery warranted refund, compensation, and slammed evasion—the bench reinforced: Paid consideration binds sellers to exact delivery.
No room for excess claims, but misconduct demanded deterrence via .
Key Observations
"The unboxing video carries significant evidentiary value, as it shows the unopened package being opened and the contents therein."
"This clearly amounts to supply of wrong goods, constituting and under the ."
"It is a settled principle that once consideration is paid, the seller is bound to deliver the exact goods ordered. Failure to do so constitutes a ."
"The conduct of the opposite party... discloses an attempt to evade liability... Such conduct is arbitrary, lacks bona fides, and amounts to an ."
Refund, Relief, and a Warning Shot
Partly allowed : Refund Rs 2,479 ; Rs 20,000 for agony/inconvenience; Rs 5,000 costs; Rs 2,00,000 to . Comply in 45 days , or 12% interest kicks in.
This ruling signals to online sellers: Deliver right, resolve promptly, or face the wallet sting. Consumers armed with videos gain leverage, potentially curbing sloppy logistics and pressure tactics in India's booming e-tail scene.
Case:
