Negligently Processed Refund In A Third-Party's Account, Rohtak District Commission Holds Snapdeal Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts:

Shri Krishnan Rohilla (“Complainant”) placed an order for a Kids Wonders imported velvet sofa from Snapdeal, amounting to Rs. 975/-. The Complainant made the payment to the delivery agent upon delivery, and the item was delivered with a bill dated 27th September 2022. Dissatisfied with the received item, the Complainant returned it. The Snapdeal representative picked up the item, and Snapdeal sent a message confirming the addition of Rs. 975/- to the Complainant's Amazon Pay account. On 13th October 2022, the Complainant informed Snapdeal that he hadn't received the amount in his Amazon Pay account or bank account. Despite this communication, Snapdeal did not respond to it. The Complainant referred the matter by sending an email to the CEO of Snapdeal, which was also not answered. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak, Haryana (“District Commission”).

Snapdeal contended that the product was picked up from the Complainant, and the amount paid during the delivery was refunded to the Complainant's Amazon Pay account. It denied the Complainant's allegations, asserting that the Complainant has already received the refund and has filed the complaint with malafide intentions to extract money wrongfully.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission while referring to the message received by the Complainant regarding the initiation of the refund, noted that the refund was made to some other person and not to Complainant's Amazon Wallet. The District Commission observed that the reference ID in the message sent to the Complainant by Snapdeal was different from the Complainant's original reference ID.

Consequently, the District Commission held Snapdeal liable for deficiency in service and ordered it to refund the amount of Rs. 975/- to the Complainant in cash and not in his Amazon wallet. Further, it also ordered Snapdeal to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs. 5,000 for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.

Case Title: Krishan Rohilla vs Snapdeal

Case No.: Complaint Case No. CC/22/612

Advocate for the Complainant: Party in Person

Advocate for the Respondent: Pramod Kumar