Ernakulum District Commission Holds Paytm And Its Officials Liable For Delivering Low-Value T-Shirt Instead Of Laptop

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulum bench comprising D.B Binu, President, V. Ramachandran, Member and Sreevidhia T.N, Member has held Paytm and its officials liable for deficiency in service for delivering a low-value T-Shirt instead of the laptop ordered by the complainant. The bench also held them liable for unfair trade practice for failure to redress the grievances and cancelling the legitimate refund request of the complainant. Brief facts: The complainant purchased a Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 3 Laptop for Rs. 28,990 through the PayTM Mall Application on 17.06.2021. The complainant gave her niece's address for delivery sine the laptop was meant to support her online classes and learning. Although the delivery date was 24.06.2021, the parcel was delivered on 03.07.2021. Upon opening the parcel in the presence of the delivery personnel, it was discovered that instead of a laptop, it contained a T-Shirt with a price tag of Rs. 349/-. The niece of the complainant raised the issue with the PayTM customer care and also submitted the photographs as proof. The company acknowledged the grievance and assured of refund initiation and pickup on 10.07.2021. However, the return request was unreasonably cancelled without any explanation. The complainant made multiple attempts to resolve the matter through PayTM's grievance redressal system. As there was no proper response, the complainant further escalated the matter to the National Consumer Helpline on 15.07.2021. The complainant even visited the PayTM office in Chennai. However, the issue remained unresolved. A legal notice dated 17.09.2021 was issued by the complainant but it was ignored by the company. Hence, a complaint was filed by the complainant against PayTM, its grievance nodal officer, general manager and customer care centre ('Opposite Parties'). The complainant prayed for a refund along with Rs. 25,000 for mental agony and Rs. 12,500 towards legal expenses. All the opposite parties failed to file their reply to the complaint within the prescribed period and hence, they were proceeded as ex-parte by the commission. Observations of the commission: The commission examined all the documents filed by the complainant including photographs of the wrongly delivered product, email communications between PayTM officials and the complainant and the legal notice. It was held that the delivery of T-Shirt instead of laptop amounts to grave deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It was further observed that the actions of the opposite parties in refusing to process the refund despite continuous follow-ups demonstrates negligence. The bench relied upon Rule 4 of the Consumer Protection E-Commerce Rules, 2020 as per which every e-commerce entity is obligated to ensure that consumers are provided with a functional grievance redressal mechanism and transparent purchasing process. The rule further provides that the consumer grievances shall be acknowledged within 48 hours and redressal shall be done within one month. The E-Commerce entities are further mandated to not impose unjust cancellation charges and to process refunds promptly. It was observed that PayTM failed to adhere to these statutory requirements by not providing proper grievance redressal mechanism, issuing misleading communications and arbitrarily rejecting a legitimate refund request. Thus, it was held that the actions of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and breach of statutory liabilities. The bench also took note of the troubles being faced by consumers in today's digital age where convenience is promised but accountability is missing. It highlighted the stress caused to the complainant who is a scientist and placed trust in a reputed E-Commerce entity for purchase of a laptop. The commission underscored the urgent need for E-Commerce platforms to uphold their legal and moral obligations by treating every consumer not as a transaction but as a person deserving of fairness, dignity and timely redressal. Hence, the complaint was partly allowed with the following reliefs: 1.Refund of Rs. 28,990/- being the purchase price of laptop2.Rs. 15,000 as compensation for mental agony, financial loss and inconvenience3.Rs. 5,000 as litigation costs Case Title: Dr. Gejo Anna vs Paytm & Ors. Case Number: CC 73/2022 Date of Decision: 17.07.2025 Click Here To Download Order

Ernakulum District Commission Holds Paytm And Its Officials Liable For Delivering Low-Value T-Shirt Instead Of Laptop

Aakanksha Bajoria

Tags