Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Seller Liable for Unproven Refund Claim in Flipkart Transaction

INTRODUCTION

In a recent ruling that reinforces the principle of burden of proof in consumer disputes, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Union Territory, Chandigarh, partly allowed a consumer complaint against an online seller for failing to provide evidence that a refund had been processed. The case highlights the risks e-commerce sellers face when relying on unsubstantiated claims, while exonerating the platform entity named in the suit.

Background and Facts of the Case

On June 20, 2021, Complainant ordered a Caran D'Ache 849 Ballpoint Pen priced at ₹1,611 through the Flipkart marketplace. The product was listed and supplied by (Opposite Party No. 1), a retailer specializing in premium writing instruments.

The pen was delivered on June 26, 2021, but in a different colour than advertised. Complainant requested a replacement, which was initially arranged but later cancelled. A second replacement was delivered on July 6, 2021, yet it again differed in colour and refill specifications from the ordered item.

Frustrated with the repeated non-conforming deliveries, the Complainant sought a refund and further relief for alleged deficiency in service.

Arguments by the Parties

The seller admitted to the deliveries but argued that the pen matched the exact model ordered. Any colour discrepancies were attributed to variations in screen resolution on different devices. Crucially, the seller claimed a refund of ₹1,611 had already been processed on July 9, 2021, and provided documents showing return settlement status.

Flipkart contended that it operates solely as a B2B entity and does not engage in direct retail sales to consumers. It clarified that the consumer-facing platform (flipkart.com) is owned and operated by a separate entity, Flipkart Internet Private Limited. Therefore, no contractual liability could be imposed on it.

The Complainant maintained that the mismatches constituted a deficiency in service and that no refund had been received.

Observations and Reasoning

The Commission observed that minor variations in perceived colour due to display differences do not inherently amount to deficiency in service, especially if a refund is promptly offered. However, the core dispute centered on whether the refund claimed by the seller had actually been credited to the complainant.

Examining the evidence submitted by Opp no. 1, the bench found it insufficient. The documents included return status updates and settlement records but lacked cogent proof such as bank statements, ledger entries, or transaction records confirming that the amount had been transferred to the complainant's account.

Relying on established legal principles, including the Supreme Court ruling in Mahakali Sujatha v. Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., the Commission reiterated: He who asserts must prove." The burden of proof lies squarely on the party making a positive assertion—in this case, the seller claiming the refund had been processed.

The bench held that mere bald averments without supporting documentary evidence cannot be accepted. By withholding the amount without proven refund, the seller was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Regarding Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd., the Commission accepted its submission that it was not the operating entity for the consumer platform and found no established deficiency on its part. The complaint against Flipkart was accordingly dismissed.

DECISION

The complaint was **partly allowed** as follows:

William Penn Pvt. Ltd. (OP no. 1) was directed to refund the full amount of ₹1,611 to the complainant, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of purchase until actual payment.

Additionally, the seller was ordered to pay ₹7,000 as compensation for mental harassment, agony, and litigation expenses.

CONCLUSION 

This decision serves as a reminder to e-commerce sellers on platforms like Flipkart that claims of refunds or other transactions must be backed by robust documentary evidence. Vague assertions or internal records without proof of credit to the consumer's account are likely to fail scrutiny in consumer forums.