The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam, comprising President S.K. Sreela and Member Stanly Harold, held Alankritha Boutique liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to deliver one of the dresses ordered by the complainant despite receiving the full payment and for failing to refund the amount.

The Commission observed that sellers conducting business through social media platforms are equally bound by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and cannot retain consumers' money without supplying the goods or refunding the consideration.

Facts:

The complainant, Devi Priya R., an Assistant Professor, came across the Instagram page of Alankritha Boutique advertising dresses for sale and placed an order for two dresses through Instagram. She paid a total of ₹3,760 via Google Pay on 13 and 14 February 2025, after which the boutique assured her that the dresses would be delivered by the last week of April 2025 for a family wedding. Later, the delivery was postponed to the first week of May 2025.

However, despite repeated assurances and follow-ups, the opposite party failed to deliver the dresses on time, avoided her calls, and did not respond properly to her communications. On 14 May 2025, only one dress was delivered after considerable delay, while the second dress was never delivered.

Although the boutique promised to refund 50% of the amount, no refund was made, and the complainant alleged that she was even subjected to abusive and threatening language during a WhatsApp call.

Claiming that the non-delivery of the dress forced her to purchase an alternative outfit at a higher price and caused her financial loss and mental agony, she approached the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The opposite party did not appear before the Commission despite service of notice, nor did it file any written version or lead evidence in support of its case. Consequently, the complaint proceeded ex parte against the opposite party.

Observation and decision:

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam, found that the complainant had successfully proved, through payment receipts and electronic communications, that the opposite party received the full consideration but failed to deliver one of the dresses and delayed the delivery of the other despite repeated assurances.

As the opposite party failed to appear or contest the proceedings, the complainant's evidence remained unrebutted. The Commission held that the boutique's conduct amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund ₹1,880, being the value of the undelivered dress, pay ₹25,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony and inconvenience, and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs, with the amounts payable within 45 days, failing which they would carry 9% annual interest.

Case Title: Devi Priya R. v. Alankritha Boutique

Case No.: C.C. No. 439/ 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order