E-commerce firm, retailer fined for delivering fake branded belt

Delivering a fake branded belt has cost online marketplace Snapdeal and a retailer, Amicraft Lifestyle Pvt Ltd, dear.

Penalising the two firms, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has directed them to refund ₹361, the cost of the belt, and pay ₹5,000 as compensation for causing agony and harassment, and litigation costs.

In his complaint, Nirmal Singh Jagdeva of Sector 38, Chandigarh, had submitted that he had placed an online order for a “Woodland” belt for ₹361 through Snapdeal’s website in June 2019.

But when the product was delivered, he realised that it was fake. There were bubbles on both sides of the belt and it started cracking after being used just thrice.

When he contacted Snapdeal customer care, the representative refused to do anything and subsequent e-mails to the company elicited no response. Alleging that these acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Singh filed a consumer complaint against the company.

In their response, representatives from Snapdeal submitted that it was merely an online marketplace, which acted as an intermediary between the actual seller and the buyer of a product.

“The website enables independent third-party sellers to list, advertise and offer to sell their products and services to the users of the website. We do not sell any product, rather all products are sold directly by various sellers to end customers and invoices are generated directly by such sellers to the customers,” they added.

Regarding refund to the buyer, the company said the “trust pay period” was over, hence his request was closed.

No one appeared from Amicraft Lifestyle Pvt Ltd, hence, it was proceeded against ex parte.

Allowing Singh’s complaint, the commission observed that he trusted the big name of Snapdeal and ordered a product which, within a few days, was found to be fake and defective.

“The act of supplying a duplicate/substandard product and thereafter not redressing the genuine grievance of the complainant, even during the pendency of the instant consumer complaint, proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,” the commission held, while ordering the respondents to refund the cost of the belt, along with compensation for the harassment undergone by him.