Mere Claim Of Refund Insufficient Without Evidence: Chandigarh Consumer Commission
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, has held that a seller cannot escape liability by merely claiming that a refund has been processed, unless such claim is supported by cogent documentary evidence. Holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact, the Commission ruled that bald averments without proof cannot be accepted and amount to deficiency in service. A Bench comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member) partly allowed a consumer complaint filed by Simranjeet Singh Sidhu against William Penn Pvt. Ltd., while dismissing the complaint against Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd.
The complainant had placed an order on June 20, 2021, for a Caran D’Ache 849 Ball Pen worth ₹1,611 through the Flipkart platform. The product was to be supplied by William Penn Pvt. Ltd. Upon delivery on June 26, 2021, the complainant received a pen of a different colour than what was ordered. A replacement was sought, but the first request was cancelled. Though a second replacement request was accepted, the product delivered on July 6, 2021 again did not match the specifications, as it differed in colour and refill type.
Aggrieved by repeated delivery of a non-conforming product and the subsequent dispute over refund, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. contended that it was not engaged in retail sales to consumers and functioned only as a B2B entity. It argued that the marketplace platform was operated by a separate legal entity and that no contractual liability could be fastened on it. William Penn Pvt. Ltd., on the other hand, admitted the deliveries but claimed that the product supplied was the same model as ordered and that any colour variation could be attributed to screen resolution differences. Crucially, it asserted that a refund had already been processed on July 9, 2021.
The Commission observed that a mere difference in colour may not, by itself, amount to deficiency in service, particularly when the seller is willing to refund the amount. However, the core issue was whether the refund claimed by the seller had actually been made.
Upon examining the documents relied upon by William Penn Pvt. Ltd., the Commission found that none conclusively proved that the refund amount had been credited to the complainant. The records merely reflected settlement or return status and did not demonstrate actual payment. No bank statements, ledger entries, or other financial records were produced to substantiate the refund.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahakali Sujatha v. Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., the Commission reiterated the settled principle that “he who asserts must prove.” Since the seller had asserted that the refund was processed, the burden squarely lay on it to establish the same through reliable evidence. The Commission held that mere assertions unsupported by documentary proof could not be accepted.
In the absence of proof of refund, the Commission concluded that the seller’s act of withholding the amount constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Accordingly, the complaint was partly allowed, and William Penn Pvt. Ltd. was directed to refund ₹1,611 to the complainant along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of purchase, and to pay ₹7,000 towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. The complaint against Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed, as no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was established against it.
Cause Title: Simranjeet Singh Sidhu v. William Penn Pvt. Ltd. (Seller) & Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CC/427/2021
Coram: Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) , B.M. Sharma (Member)
