Pranav B Prem

The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Paytm and its officials liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices after a consumer, who ordered a laptop worth ₹28,990 through Paytm Mall, received a T-shirt valued at ₹349 instead.

Also Read: NCLAT: Rectification of NCLT Orders Governed by NCLT Rules, Not IBC — Two-Year Limit Under Rule 154 Upheld

The Commission, comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N, was adjudicating a complaint filed by Dr. Gejo Anna Geevarghese, a Scientist at the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management under the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. The laptop was ordered on June 17, 2021, with the intention of aiding her niece’s online education during the pandemic. However, the delivery was not only delayed but also grossly incorrect — a T-shirt was delivered on July 3, 2021, instead of the Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 3 laptop.

Upon discovering the incorrect delivery, the complainant's niece immediately contacted Paytm’s customer care and shared photographs of the wrongly delivered product. Although the grievance was initially acknowledged and a refund pickup was scheduled for July 10, 2021, the return request was abruptly and arbitrarily cancelled the next day without any explanation.

Despite repeated attempts by the complainant to escalate the issue through various channels, including Paytm's internal grievance mechanism, the National Consumer Helpline, and a personal visit to the company’s office in Chennai, no resolution was offered. The complainant even issued a legal notice on September 17, 2021, which was ignored.

Notices were issued to all four opposite parties—Paytm, its Grievance Nodal Officer, General Manager, and the Customer Care Centre. Although some of them filed appearance, none of the opposite parties filed their replies within the statutory time limit prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, they were all proceeded ex-parte.

The Commission, after examining the documentary evidence which included payment proof, email correspondences, photographs of the incorrect product, and the legal notice, held that the delivery of a T-shirt instead of a laptop constituted a grave deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It further found that the actions of the opposite parties in declining a legitimate refund request, issuing contradictory communications, and failing to provide redressal amounted to unfair trade practice under Section 2(47).

The bench also took note of the obligations imposed on e-commerce platforms under Rule 4 of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. These rules mandate e-commerce entities to provide accurate information, maintain transparency in transactions, ensure a functioning grievance redressal system, acknowledge complaints within 48 hours, and resolve them within one month. The Commission held that Paytm failed to comply with these statutory requirements and thereby breached its legal obligations.

The Commission strongly criticised the conduct of the opposite parties, observing that such negligence and procedural indifference reflect a lack of accountability in digital commerce. It highlighted the stress and inconvenience suffered by the complainant, especially given her professional responsibilities and the impact on her niece’s education. It observed that the case illustrates the broader issue of digital consumer vulnerability, where convenience often replaces responsibility. Holding all four opposite parties jointly and severally liable, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed them to:

• Refund ₹28,990, the price paid for the laptop;

• Pay ₹15,000 as compensation for mental agony, financial loss, and inconvenience; and

• Pay ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.

Also Read: NCLT: Adjudicating Authority Can Conclude Insolvency Process Based on RP’s Report If No Repayment Plan Is Filed by Personal Guarantor

These amounts are to be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which interest at 9% per annum will accrue from the date of filing the complaint—January 28, 2022—until actual realization.

Appearance

For the Complainant: Adv. Aswin Kumar

For the Opposite Parties: K.S.Arundas, AbheekSaha, Abijith K, LijinThamban, Advocates 

Cause Title: Dr. Gejo Anna V. Paytm & Ors.

Case No: CC 73/2022

Coram: Shri. D.B Binu [President], Shri V. Ramachandran [Member], Smt Sreevidhia T.N [Member]