Kurnool Consumer Commission Directs FirstCry To Refund Order Amount, Pay ₹50,000 Compensation For Unfair Trade Practice
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool, comprising Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar (President), Sri N. Narayana Reddy (Member) and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar (Member), has directed FirstCry.com to refund the amount paid by a consumer and pay compensation after finding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in cancelling an order, withholding the refund amount and marking the consumer as a "fraud user" without substantiating its allegations.
Facts
The complainant, Shaik Altaf, placed an online order on FirstCry.com on December 1, 2024, for a children's tricycle and paid ₹2,130.06. However, the order was cancelled by the company the very next day without assigning any reason or issuing prior notice. Despite the cancellation, the amount paid was not refunded.
Upon contacting customer care, the complainant was informed that the amount had been adjusted against a previous order placed in 2023, on the allegation that a wrong product had been returned in that transaction. The complainant denied the allegation, contending that the earlier return had been duly accepted and the refund processed only after warehouse quality verification in accordance with the company's own policy. He further alleged that the company had unlawfully recovered the amount by cancelling the fresh order and had internally flagged him as a "fraud user" without any notice, inquiry or supporting material.
Aggrieved by the actions of the company, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission seeking refund of the amount, compensation and other reliefs.
Contention of the Opposite Party
The opposite party challenged the maintainability of the complaint, contending that the orders and invoices stood in the name of Sameer Basha Bamri and not the complainant. It submitted that in a previous transaction of 2023, three products had been returned after refund requests were approved.
According to the company, subsequent warehouse verification revealed that non-original products had been returned instead of the products delivered. It alleged that the complainant had engaged in a fraudulent return scheme and that its internal fraud detection system had therefore cancelled the subsequent order dated December 1, 2024 and adjusted the amount towards the loss allegedly suffered in the earlier transaction. The company maintained that its actions were bona fide and in accordance with its internal policies and denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
Observations & Decision
The Commission noted that the complainant had established the placement of the order, payment of the amount and subsequent cancellation of the order through documentary evidence. It found that the opposite party had failed to produce any cogent evidence to substantiate its allegation that incorrect products had been returned in the earlier transaction.
The Commission further observed that the company had relied upon documents relating to a different person, namely Sameer Basha Bamri, whereas the complainant before it was Shaik Altaf. In the absence of reliable evidence, the contention that the complainant was a stranger to the transaction was rejected.
It was also observed that the company had admittedly accepted the earlier returns and processed refunds after verification. Having done so, it could not subsequently allege that the returned products were incorrect and deny a refund in a later transaction. Referring to the company's own refund policy, the Commission held that acceptance of returns and issuance of refunds necessarily implied verification of the returned products. Therefore, the subsequent allegation of fraud without proof amounted to an unfair trade practice.
The Commission took note of material placed on record showing that representatives of the company had contacted the complainant after the dispute arose and offered a refund along with compensation of ₹15,000 to settle the matter. It observed that such conduct strengthened the complainant's case and was inconsistent with the company's later stand that the transaction did not pertain to the complainant.
The Commission also found that the documents produced by the company were unclear and illegible and could not defeat a legitimate consumer claim. It held that cancelling the order, withholding the refund, taking inconsistent stands and marking the complainant as a "Fraud Order" without due process amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, besides causing mental agony to the complainant.
Partly allowing the complaint, the Commission directed FirstCry.com to refund ₹2,130 to the complainant along with interest at 9% per annum from December 1, 2024 until realization. It further directed the company to pay ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
The Commission also directed the company to refrain from adopting such unfair trade practices in future and ordered compliance with the directions within 45 days from receipt of the order.
Case Title: Shaik Altaf v. FirstCry.com
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 19/2026