₹30,000 compensation for Mohali man who didn’t receive online order

A Phase-6 resident, who dragged Facebook and an online retailer to consumer court for not delivering a kitchen rack worth ₹2,535 despite full payment, has been awarded a complete refund along with ₹30,000 as compensation.

Taking strict note of the malpractice, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has also asked Facebook India and the retailer, FIU Pumpy, to pay ₹20,000 to the Tricity Consumer Courts Bar Association.

The complainant, Kulwinder Singh, had approached the commission against the opposite parties (OPs) through their respective managing directors in Hyderabad, accusing them of deficient services.

Singh submitted that he saw an advertisement at FIU Pumpy on Facebook and bought a kitchen rack worth ₹2,535 from them on July 11, 2021, through payment gateway provided by Facebook.

The order was to be delivered within two weeks. When it did not arrive on time, he sent an e-mail on August 8, 2021, to the OPs, seeking an update.

He received a response the next day, informing him that his order was shipped and also sent a tracking link.

But the order was still not delivered. He sent another e-mail on August 27, 2021, and the OPs again replied that the order was in transit and would be shipped to the destination country shortly.

After waiting for weeks, he e-mailed them once again on October 7, 2021, but got no response this time. Another e-mail sent on October 21, 2021, bounced with the remarks that the e-mail address was not found.

Thus, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, Singh submitted his complaint, seeking refund of ₹2,535 and ₹1 lakh as compensation for harassment and mental agony, and unfair trade practice, apart from ₹25,000 as legal expenses.

The OPs did not appear before the commission and were proceeded ex parte.

The commission observed that Facebook India fetched huge money by promoting/selling online products through its interface. “The user, like the complainant, purchases the products from the website of OP number 1 and it is their liability to ensure the delivery of products to the customers who pay the money for purchasing the products from its website. It stands proved that the OPs committed unfair trade practice by not delivering the product to the complainant after receipt of the amount. We are of the view that in order to curb such type of malpractice, exemplary cost is to be imposed upon the OPs so that interest of gullible consumers are protected and they are saved from this type of unfair trade practice by the OPs,” the commission pronounced, awarding the complainant a full refund, along with interest at 9% per annum, and ₹30,000 compensation for mental agony.