No Proof Of Refund, Seller Liable: Chandigarh Consumer Commission

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), partly allowed a complaint against a seller for failing to substantiate its claim that a refund had been processed, holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact and that mere bald averments without cogent documentary evidence cannot be accepted. Brief facts: The complainant, Simranjeet Singh Sidhu, placed an order on 20.06.2021 for a Caran D'Ache 849 Ball Pen for a sum of ₹1,611/- through the Flipkart platform. The product was to be supplied by Opposite Party No. 2, William Penn Pvt. Ltd. Upon delivery on 26.06.2021, the complainant received a pen of a different colour than the one ordered, following which he sought a replacement. The first replacement request was cancelled on 30.06.2021. Although a second replacement request was accepted, the product delivered on 06.07.2021 again differed in colour and refill specification from what had been ordered. Aggrieved by the repeated delivery of a product allegedly not conforming to his order and the subsequent dispute regarding refund, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission seeking appropriate relief. Contentions of the Opposite Parties Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. contended that it was not engaged in direct retail sales to consumers and operated only as a B2B entity. It clarified that the marketplace platform flipkart.com was owned and operated by a separate legal entity, Flipkart Internet Private Limited, and therefore no contractual liability could be fastened on it. William Penn Pvt. Ltd., on the other hand, admitted the deliveries but maintained that the pen supplied was the exact model ordered. It attributed the alleged colour variation to differences in screen resolution. Crucially, it asserted that the complainant had already been issued a refund on July 9, 2021, and therefore was no longer entitled to any relief. Observations and decision of the Commission: The Commission observed that a mere difference in colour, by itself, cannot not necessarily amount to deficiency in service, particularly where the seller is willing to refund the amount. However, the central issue before the Commission was whether the refund claimed by the seller had, in fact, been made. Upon examining the documents relied upon by William Penn Pvt. Ltd., the Commission found that none of them conclusively established that the refund amount had been credited to the complainant. The records produced merely referred to settlement or return status and did not demonstrate actual payment. Notably, no bank statements, ledger entries, or other cogent financial records were placed on record to prove the refund. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Mahakali Sujatha v. Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., the Commission reiterated the settled principle that “he who asserts must prove.” Since the seller had asserted that the refund had been processed, the burden squarely lay on it to establish the same through reliable evidence. The Commission held that bald averments unsupported by documentary proof could not be accepted. In the absence of proof of refund, the Commission concluded that the seller's act of withholding the amount constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed William Penn Pvt. Ltd. to refund ₹1,611 to the complainant along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of purchase. It further awarded ₹7,000 towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. The complaint against Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed, as no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was established against it. Case Title: Simranjeet Singh Sidhu v. William Penn Pvt. Ltd. (Seller) & Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. Case Number: CC/427/2021 Click Here To Read/Download Order

No Proof Of Refund, Seller Liable: Chandigarh Consumer Commission

Praveen Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Praveen Mishra

No Proof Of Refund, Seller Liable: Chandigarh Consumer Commission

Praveen Mishra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Praveen Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers