South Mumbai District Commission Holds Blinkit Liable For Failure To Refund Price For Undelivered Grocery Item

Brief Facts:

Kalpana Shantilal Shah (“Complainant”) placed an order for groceries through Blinkit's online portal. Upon receiving the ordered goods, she discovered that one item, namely 'Tarboojmagaj', was missing from the delivered goods. Despite the items being listed on the invoice and payment being made during delivery, the Complainant found a discrepancy during the verification process. The Complainant promptly contacted the delivery boy, notifying him of the issue. The delivery boy assured her that he would inform the manager about the missing item. However, after this assurance, neither the delivery boy nor the manager provided any response or resolution to the Complainant.

In the absence of a satisfactory reply, the Complainant lodged a formal complaint through Blinkit's customer support. Despite diligent follow-ups, the customer support team asserted that, according to their records, all items were delivered correctly, and no discrepancies were noted. Consequently, they closed the complaint without addressing the concerns. Frustrated with the company's response, the Complainant sought alternative means of contact to resolve the issue. A few days later, the Complainant found a number on Google to communicate with an agent of Blinkit, The Complainant provided a detailed explanation of the entire incident to the agent. In response, the agent offered a refund for the undelivered item. However, the Complainant, desiring the specific item rather than a refund, refused the proposed solution.

Subsequently, the Complainant received a call from another number where an individual identifying himself as an agent of Blinkit informed the Complainant that the delivery of the missing item might take an additional 15-20 days or possibly longer. Furthermore, the agent presented an alternative solution, proposing an immediate refund if the Complainant provided her Paytm number. The Complainant reluctantly agreed to the refund, sharing her son's Paytm number with the agent.

She received a call from the same number, instructing her to forward the messages her son would receive on the specified Paytm number for the initiation of the refund process. Complying with the request, the Complainant forwarded two messages sent to her son's mobile number – a normal text message and a link. After this action, the agent advised her to wait while the transaction was in progress. Unfortunately, within a few minutes, the Complainant's son received a message from the Central Bank of India, indicating a debit of Rs.5000/-.

Shocked by the ongoing unauthorized transactions, the Complainant and her son rushed to the nearest ATM to block the debit card, intending to stop any further online transactions by deliberately entering an incorrect PIN three times. However, by the time they reached the ATM, a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- had been debited from the Complainant's son's bank account. Responding to the situation, the Complainant and her son promptly sent an email to the concerned bank, reporting the illegal transactions. That night, the Complainant emailed the Central Bank of India's head office to cease the unauthorized transactions. Subsequently, they also filed an FIR.

Despite these efforts, neither the Complainant nor her son has received any form of reply, message, or call from Blinkit regarding the undelivered grocery item. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (“District Commission”).

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission noted that the conversation between Blinkit customer care and the Complainant clearly showed that Blinkit acknowledged its fault and expressed a willingness to refund the amount of Rs. 31. As to the unauthenticated transactions which occurred in the bank account of the Complainant's son, the District Commission noted that despite warnings from banks and financial institutions, the Complainant negligently shared the OTP without confirming the caller's authenticity. Therefore, the District Commission held that Blinkit cannot be held responsible for the Complainant's negligence.

Nevertheless, the District Commission held that Tarbujmagaj was not delivered, and Blinkit did not refund the amount. Therefore, it held Blinkit liable for deficiency in service and ordered it to pay Rs. 31/- to the Complainant with 9% interest from 28/01/2020 until realization. It was also ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- for litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.

Case Title: Kalpanashantilal Shah Vs Grofers India Pvt. Ltd. (Blinkit).

Case No.: Consumer Complaint No:35/2022

Advocate for the Complainant: Aman Sakaria

Advocate for the Respondent: Ex parte