Instagram seller penalised for failing to exchange saree sold to Chandigarh woman
The complainant, Saroj Chaudhary of Chandigarh, had filed a case against the managing director of designer collection, Fabinsta Villa, Gujarat
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has penalised a Gujarat-based designer for failing to provide a customer an exchange on an organza saree.
The complainant, Saroj Chaudhary of Chandigarh, filed a case against the managing director of designer collection, Fabinsta Villa, Gujarat, stating that in September 2021, she booked an organza silk saree with sequins and cutdana work with green belt from the Instagram page of the seller.
The woman said she decided to purchase the saree worth ₹2,000 only after the seller agreed that if the fabric or work was not as per the description, the product will be exchanged within a seven-day period.
Upon receiving the fabric, the complainant found the designer work on the saree lacking and very different from what she had requested. She then approached the seller for a return, but no one answered the calls or reverted to her messages. Stating that the act amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the seller, the woman filed the current complaint.
The seller failed to send a representative before the commission, following which the case proceeded ex parte.
The commission observed that it was clear from the reply given by the seller to the complainant, through WhatsApp that it had agreed to exchange the saree.
It further noted that the complainant had, in her last message, requested for an exchange, but the seller neither replied nor responded to the requests, showing that there was deficiency in services on the part of the seller, as it failed to both replace the said saree till date or refund the amount. The forum, thus, directed the seller to refund ₹1,999 to the woman along with interest at 9% per annum with effect from September 25, 2021 (the date when the woman requested for the redressal of her grievance), till realisation of the same. The designer was also directed to pay ₹2,000 as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her, and ₹ 2,000 as litigation costs.