Rejecting Return Request without Reasons, Chandigarh District Commission Holds Titan & Myntra Liable For Unfair Trade Practices
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Ms Surjeet Kaur (Presiding Member) and Mr B.M. Sharma (Member) held Titan Company Limited and Myntra Designs Private Limited liable for unfair trade practices for rejecting the return request of the Complainant, within assigning any reason for the same. The District Commission ordered...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Ms Surjeet Kaur (Presiding Member) and Mr B.M. Sharma (Member) held Titan Company Limited and Myntra Designs Private Limited liable for unfair trade practices for rejecting the return request of the Complainant, within assigning any reason for the same. The District Commission ordered them to collectively pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation to the Complainant and refund the purchase amount of the product bought.
Brief Facts:
Parul (“Complainant”) placed an order for a Tommy Hilfiger Men's White Dial Watch, listed by Titan Company Limited (“Titan”), the authorized seller of Tommy Hilfiger Watches. The order was placed online from Myntra Designs Private Limited (“Myntra”). She made a payment of Rs. 8,500/- using her brother's credit card. The watch was delivered to the Complainant within a few days. However, upon receiving the product, the Complainant discovered that it was not the same watch that she had ordered. Immediately after delivery, the Complainant raised a return request with Myntra seeking a refund for the purchase. The return request was confirmed by email. However, later, Myntra rejected the return request without providing a valid reason. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”), against Titan and Myntra.
Despite being duly served, Myntra did not appear for the proceedings. On the other hand, Titan submitted upon receiving the Complainant's order, it directed its warehouse to pack the product under CCTV surveillance. Subsequently, Myntra instructed its logistics service provider to collect the product from it. Titan asserted that its role concluded upon handing over the product to the Logistic Service provider of Myntra, and it was the responsibility of the Logistic Service provider to ensure the proper delivery of the product to the customer.
Observations by the Commission:
On appreciating the facts, the District Commission noted that the Complainant immediately raised a return request after receiving the wrong product. Titan and Myntra did not provide any reason for rejecting her return request. Further, Myntra's non-appearance indicated a lack of defence against the Complainant's allegations.
Therefore, the District Commission held that the non-assignment of the reason for rejecting the return request amounted to unfair trade practices on the part of both Titan and Myntra. It directed them to refund Rs. 8,500/-, that is, the purchase amount of the watch. Titan and Myntra were also directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses.
Case Title: Parul vs Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: CC/780/2021
Advocate for the Complainant: Sahil Singla
Advocate for the Respondent: Bipin Kalappa and Badhan Singh (for Titan Co. Ltd.)