Feedback

Myntra Held Liable for Wrong Product Delivery: Consumer Wins Refund and Compensation

Avnish Mittal, a resident of Chandigarh, filed a consumer complaint against Myntra after receiving the wrong product — a pair of ladies' sandals instead of the Saint-G Men’s Shoes he had ordered for ₹7,611. Despite repeated complaints and legal notices, Myntra failed to resolve the issue.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, ruled in favor of the complainant, finding Myntra guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The Commission ordered Myntra to:

1. Refund ₹7,611 with 9% interest from May 17, 2023.
2. Pay ₹2,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3. Pay ₹2,000 towards litigation costs.

Myntra was also instructed to collect the wrongly delivered product at its own cost.

Key Points:

• The wrong product was delivered to the complainant with an invoice addressed to another customer.
• Myntra's claim that it was merely an intermediary was dismissed by the Commission.
• The order emphasized Myntra’s obligation under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, to ensure proper service and refunds.

The case highlights the importance of e-commerce platforms adhering to their consumer responsibilities.

Analysis

In a significant ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh, held Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices after a Chandigarh resident, Avnish Mittal, received the wrong product. The judgment reinforces the accountability of e-commerce platforms under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.

Case Background

Avnish Mittal, a resident of Chandigarh, placed an order for Saint-G Men’s Tan Brown Solid Chelsea Boots (UK size 8) through Myntra's online platform on May 13, 2023. The total amount of ₹7,611 was paid via credit card, and the order was confirmed with an invoice issued in his name.

On May 17, 2023, Mittal received the parcel, but to his shock, it contained a pair of ladies' sandals along with an invoice addressed to another customer, Gitanjali Chavan from Aurangabad.

Attempts for Resolution

Believing it to be a genuine mistake, Mittal immediately contacted Myntra's customer care, sharing images of the incorrect product and the invoice. Despite registering a formal complaint on May 17, 2023, Myntra rejected his request for resolution, citing a lack of evidence. This prompted Mittal to send a legal notice to Myntra, which went unanswered, leaving him with no option but to file a consumer complaint on June 16, 2023.

Myntra’s Defense

In its written response, Myntra:

1. Claimed it was merely an intermediary facilitating transactions between buyers and sellers.
2. Argued that the actual seller, Saint-G Leather Studio Pvt. Ltd., was not made a party to the complaint, rendering it liable for dismissal.
3. Denied delivering the wrong product and asserted that the order had passed a quality check.

The company contended that the complaint was baseless and sought its dismissal.

The Commission’s Findings

After reviewing the evidence, including the invoice, product images, and screenshots submitted by Mittal, the Commission ruled in his favor. Key findings included:

1. Delivery of Wrong Product: The Commission noted that the complainant had ordered men’s boots but received ladies' sandals, as evidenced by the invoice and photographs.
2. E-Commerce Responsibilities: As an e-commerce entity, Myntra is legally bound to ensure proper service under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.
3. Deficiency in Service: Myntra’s failure to resolve the issue, coupled with the rejection of the complainant’s claim, constituted a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

The Commission dismissed Myntra’s argument of being an intermediary, emphasizing that the invoice and transaction were directly linked to Myntra, making it responsible for the resolution.

Judgment

The Commission partially allowed the complaint, directing Myntra to:

1. Refund ₹7,611 to Avnish Mittal along with 9% annual interest from May 17, 2023, until realization.
2. Pay ₹2,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
3. Reimburse ₹2,000 as litigation costs.
4. Collect the wrongly delivered product from the complainant at its own cost.

The order also stated that if Myntra failed to comply within 45 days, the interest on the refund and compensation would increase to 12% per annum until the amounts were paid.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment sends a strong message to e-commerce platforms about their obligations toward consumers. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and E-Commerce Rules, 2020, online platforms cannot shirk their responsibility by citing intermediary status. They must ensure transparency, accuracy, and timely redressal of grievances.