The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central Mumbai), however, denied the complainant compensation for mental harassment, saying he had “equally harassed and traumatised” the company’s officers by sending derogatory, abusive and threatening emails.
The commission directed Refiff.com to refund Rs 16,124 to the complainant with interest and pay Rs 3,000 towards the cost of the complaint.
In an order passed on June 9, the commission came down heavily on the customer for being rude towards the website’s representatives, including women employees.
The commission stressed that the said “behaviour of the complainant is not justified under any circumstances”.
The complainant stated that he placed an order on January 25, 2018, for a 5-gm gold coin through Refiff.com’s website, for which he paid Rs 16,124.
The product was delivered on February 1, 2018. However, he registered a return request on the same day, stating he received a ring instead of a gold coin.
The website acknowledged the return request and, after an investigation, arranged for pickup of the wrong product, the complaint stated.
It stated that the item, delivered incorrectly, was successfully picked up and sent to Refiff.com on February 21, 2018. The e-commerce website subsequently informed the complainant that it was not possible to replace the product as it was out of stock.
It offered a refund, requesting the customer’s bank details.
However, the complainant claimed that despite providing his bank details, the website failed to process the refund.
The complainant escalated the issue to the CEO and issued a legal notice but did not receive a resolution.
He then filed the consumer complaint seeking a refund of Rs 16,124 with 24 per cent interest, Rs 50,000 for mental harassment, and Rs 20,000 as the cost of the complaint.
The e-commerce website argued that the complaint was barred by the principle of Res Judicata — a legal doctrine that prevents the same parties from re-litigating a case that has already been decided by a court with proper jurisdiction.
It pointed out that the complainant had previously filed a similar complaint in Goa, which was dismissed.
The said customer is a habitual complainant, and his plea was based on distorted facts and baseless allegations, it argued.
The company further claimed to be a mere intermediary between buyers and sellers, and no deficiency of any kind is attributable to them.
However, the commission ruled that the principle of Res Judicata was not applicable, as the previous complaint in Goa was dismissed due to non-appearance and not on merit.
The commission noted that Refiff.com itself handled the complainant’s grievance, confirmed the order, arranged for the return of the wrong product, and asked for bank details for a refund.
Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, it “cannot claim immunity from deficiency in service on the ground that they are not the actual seller”.
The commission then concluded that the website was “deficient in its services” by taking back the wrong product from the customer but failing to issue a refund.
The commission has directed the company to comply with the order within 60 days. PTI AVI ARU
