Failure To Initiate Full Refund As Per T&C, Bangalore District Commission Holds Myntra Liable

The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Vijaykumar M Pawale (President), B Devaraju (Member) and V Anuradha (Member) held Myntra liable for deficiency in services for failure to honour the 14-day return policy published on its website and for charging higher than the MRP on the packaging. The bench directed it to refund Rs.17,999/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 2,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him. Brief Facts: Mr Mukul Khater (“Complainant”), a regular customer of Myntra Designs Pvt Ltd., purchased "Adidas Unisex Ultraboost 23 Running Shoes," Size 9 inches for Rs.18,999/-. The product page on Mnytra's platform advertised an "Easy 14 days return and exchanges policy," allowing returns or exchanges within 14 days of receipt under the condition that the product must be unused and in its original condition with all original packaging intact. However, upon receiving the product, the Complainant discovered a price mismatch, as the MRP on the box was Rs. 17,999/-, while Myntra charged Rs. 18,999/-. The Complainant initiated a return request, which was rejected by Myntra, stating that there was a price mismatch. In response, the Complainant contacted Myntra's customer care team, raising a resolution ticket. Despite sharing proof of the price discrepancy, the ticket was closed after 48 hours, with Myntra claiming technical issues. The Complainant escalated the issue to the Government of India's PG Portal, but Myntra cancelled the return request and created a new ticket, falsely stating that the Complainant sought a refund of Rs. 1,000/-. The Complainant faced continuous delays and contradictory responses from Myntra. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Myntra. In response, Myntra filed a written version opposing the complaint, asserting that the Complainant was not entitled to relief. It claimed protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and exemption under Section 5(1) of the Consumer Protection Act (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, as an intermediary marketplace platform. It argued that it does not directly sell products and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission referred to Myntra's website and Frequently Answered Questions (FAQs) displayed information about the product's price, return/exchange policy, and the option to return items within a specified period. The District Commission noted that despite the Complainant's request for a full refund of the entire amount paid, Myntra offered to refund only the excess Rs. 1,000/- charged above the MRP. Therefore, the District Commission failed to honour its 14-day return policy, as advertised by it. Consequently, it held Myntra liable for deficiency in services and directed Myntra to refund Rs. 17,999/- to the Complainant. Additionally, considering the nature of the dispute, the District Commission directed Myntra to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant and pay Rs. 2,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.

Failure To Initiate Full Refund As Per T&C, Bangalore District Commission Holds Myntra Liable

Smita Singh

Tags