Failure To Resolve Credit Issue Within Promised Deadline, Ernakulam District Commission Holds Myntra Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Myntra liable for deficiency in service for failure to resolve the issue with the Complainant's credit points within the promised deadline. Brief Facts: The Complainant credited Rs. 5,000/- to...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Myntra liable for deficiency in service for failure to resolve the issue with the Complainant's credit points within the promised deadline.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant credited Rs. 5,000/- to Myntra Credit for making a payment. The payment was initially cancelled due to technical issues and the Complainant's account was suspended. The Complainant registered a complaint with Myntra, which assured him that the issue would be resolved within a couple of days. The Complaint requested Myntra to transfer the credited amount to his friend's account or refund to his bank account. However, Myntra denied the requests by saying that the credit was non-transferable. The Complainant suffered the loss of time and energy because of this.
Seeking a refund of the credited amount, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”). Myntra contended that it cannot be held liable for the actions of the seller listed on the platform. It claimed the defence of being an intermediary and claimed itself to be exempted from liability for third-party transactions. Further, the credit points were non-transferable as per Myntra's terms and conditions. Since the credit was purchased from a third-party source, Myntra claimed that it was not responsible for the refund.
Observations of the Commission:
The District Commission referred to Ravneet Singh Bagga vs KLM Royal Dutch Airlines [(2000) 1 SCC 66], where the Supreme Court held that deficiency in service includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance required by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise concerning any service. Further, the District Commission held that intermediaries are not liable for third-party actions, but they are liable for their own actions and service failures.
From the evidence presented, it was clear that Myntra failed to resolve the issue within the promised deadline and did not provide adequate consumer service to address the Complainant's concerns. Non-transferability clause in Myntra's terms and conditions was not found sufficient to exempt it from the liability of providing a fair resolution to the Complainant.
As a result, the District Commission directed Myntra to refund Rs. 5,000/-, pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.
Case Title: Anil Kumar TS vs Myntra Designs Private Limited
Case No.:C.C. No. 547/2022