Consumer forum fines firm after refund paid to wrong customer

Ludhiana: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has penalised an e-commerce company for ‘deficiency in service’ after it wrongly transferred refund amount of a customer to someone else and failed to resolve the complaint within the stipulated time.
The commission comprising president Sanjeev Batra and member Jaswinder Singh directed a Bangalore-based online shopping portal to refund Rs 834.96 to the complainant Varinder Singh of Samrala here with an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date when it was due till the actual payment date.
The commission also directed the company to pay a composite cost of Rs 2,500 to the complainant.
The complainant in his complaint to the commission on April 18, said that on February 18, he purchased two articles of a sum of Rs 2,049.70 out of which, Rs 205.74 was returned to him as Jio cashback and an amount of Rs 1,843.96 was paid by the complainant through an online banking app.
The complainant received the order on February 22, but he was not satisfied with the articles and as such, he made a return/cancel request the next day and also requested for refund of the amount in his account maintained with Canara Bank.
The return request was accepted and the article was picked up on the same day and the company refunded Rs 1,000 to the complainant in his account.
The complainant further averred that the other order reached on February 25, but again the complainant was not satisfied with the order and subsequently made a return/cancel request the next day.
The article was picked up on February 27, but the amount of Rs 843.96 was not returned to him, till date.
The complainant made several online requests to AJIO in response to which, the firm replied on March 5 and 7, seeking more time to resolve the complaint of the complainant for refunding the amount.
The complainant received an email on March 11 saying that the amount of Rs 539.73 was refunded to one Raghunandan and the remaining amount of Rs 205.74 reflected to the Jio cashback.
However, the complainant never gave the said account number, nor did he have any relations with Raghunandan.
Hence, the complainant maintained that the firm had caused him wrongful loss of Rs 843.96, besides causing him mental tension and agony.
The complainant sent a legal notice dated February 28 through registered post through his counsel, but to no avail. This act of the company had caused monetary loss to the complainant.
The complainant hence requested that the company be directed to make a payment of Rs 834.96 along with interest and a compensation of Rs 20,000 for mental pain, agony and harassment, apart from Rs 13,000 as litigation expenses.
A notice was issued to the company but it did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte.
The commission heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and after going through the documents produced on record by the complainant, the commission held that the return request was accepted but the remaining amount of Rs 843.96 was not refunded.
Besides, the email of the company depicts that the grievance of the complainant was acknowledged on March 5, where it also undertook to resolve the matter on or before March 11.
The commission observed that even as email received from the company reveals that instead of crediting the refund of Rs 843.96 in the account of the complainant, it was wrongly credited in the account of Raghunandan.
The complainant served legal notice calling upon the company to refund the amount, but the company through email informed that the refund has been done in the account of one Raghunandan.
“From the above said chronology of events, it is clear that the complainant had been repeatedly approaching the opposite party (company) through emails, although the opposite party has acknowledged the said grievance but they could not resolve the same within stipulated time and rather transferred the amount wrongly into the account of a third person namely Raghunandan”, the commission remarked.
“It clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party”, it added, fining the company Rs 2,500 for the same, and directing it to refund the said amount with an additional interest of 8% per annum as applicable from the date of payment made to the date of fine paid.