Ladies' Sandals Delivered Instead Of Men's Shoes, Chandigarh District Commission Holds Myntra Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts:

Mr. Avnish Mittal (“Complainant”) placed an online order for Saint G Men's Shoes, paying Rs. 7611/- through their credit card from Myntra. Upon receiving the parcel, the Complainant discovered a completely different product - ladies' sandals. Despite promptly contacting customer care through the app and a call, providing images of the wrongly received product, Myntra initially assured resolution but later mechanically rejected the complaint. The Complainant made several communications with Myntra but didn't receive any satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Myntra.

In response, Myntra contested the consumer complaint, raising preliminary objections such as maintainability, cause of action, suppression of fact, and non-joinder of necessary parties. It argued that it is an online service provider under the Information Technology Act. It contended that the complaint should be dismissed due to the non-joinder of Saint-G Leather Studio Pvt. Ltd. (“Manufacturer”) as a necessary party. Although acknowledging the Complainant's order placement on their online platform, it denied the allegation of delivering the wrong product. It argued that the Complainant's request was rightfully declined as their quality check confirmed the delivery of the correct product in intact condition.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission notes that Myntra dispatched a product entirely different from the one ordered by the Complainant. It held that as an e-commerce entity, Myntra cannot evade liability, particularly considering its obligations under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. These rules mandate that every e-commerce entity must fulfil its duties, including effecting payments towards accepted refund requests within a reasonable period, as prescribed by relevant authorities.

Furthermore, the District Commission held that the Complainant directly paid ₹ 7611/- to Myntra for the product, with Myntra being well aware of the seller. Despite this, Myntra and the seller failed to supply the ordered product, delivering an entirely different item. Therefore, the District Commission held Myntra liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices.

Consequently, the District Commission was directed to pay ₹ 7611/- to the complainant along with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from May 17, 2023, onwards. Additionally, Myntra was instructed to compensate the Complainant with an amount of ₹ 2000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused. Furthermore, it was ordered to pay ₹ 2000/- to the Complainant as the costs of litigation.

Case Title: Avnish Mittal vs Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: CC/300/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order