{"id":30148,"date":"2026-09-29T08:07:44","date_gmt":"2026-09-29T08:07:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=30148"},"modified":"2026-09-29T08:07:44","modified_gmt":"2026-09-29T08:07:44","slug":"customer-returned-sunglasses-but-refund-was-denied-after-quality-check-consumer-court-awards-rs-27839","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=30148","title":{"rendered":"Customer returned sunglasses but refund was denied after quality check, consumer court awards Rs 27,839 |"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"Customer<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
AI generated image used for representative purpose<\/span><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Telangana has directed an online marketplace to refund Rs 17,839 to a customer who returned a pair of sunglasses but was denied a refund after the company said the product failed its quality check. The commission also awarded Rs 5,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. The order was passed on September 21, 2026.Why did the customer approach the consumer commission?<\/span>According to the commission order, T Pranav Rao bought a pair of sunglasses through an online shopping platform for Rs 17,839 on August 5, 2023. The sunglasses were delivered to him on August 9. After examining them, Rao alleged that he was not satisfied with their quality and requested a return on August 15.The delivery executive collected the sunglasses from the complainant on August 19 and the company confirmed the pickup by email. However, the same day, the company informed him that the returned sunglasses had failed its quality check and hence the refund could not be processed.The complainant also informed the commission that no objection was raised about the condition of the sunglasses when they were collected from him. He further alleged that any damage or discrepancy noticed later could have occurred during the transportation or handling after the product had left his custody.However, the e-commerce platform claimed that it was an online marketplace that just facilitated transactions between independent sellers and buyers. It then argued that the actual sale was between the seller and the customer and that it was only an intermediary.The company, on the other hand relied on a packing video and photographs. It claimed that the returned sunglasses had scratches, appeared to have been used and were missing the outer branded box, glass cover and two cards. It also pointed out that a brand sticker visible on the lens in the seller’s packing video was missing from the returned product.Why did the commission order a refund?<\/span>The bench comprising President Chitneni Latha Kumari <\/span>and members D Madhavi Latha <\/span>and Kathyayani Khandavilli <\/span>noted that the company’s return policy allowed it to conduct a quality check after receiving a returned product. However, it found that the material produced by the company did not establish that the alleged damage or missing accessories were attributable to Rao.The commission said the quality-check email merely stated that the product had failed the prescribed standards but did not specify the particular defect, damage or shortage alleged against the customer.The commission also examined the video submitted by the company. It found that the recording of the returned parcel was not continuous.\u201cThus, the video does not provide a completely uninterrupted visual sequence from the initial presentation of the returned parcel through its opening and removal of the contents. It weakens the evidentiary value of the video for conclusively establishing that the condition and contents subsequently shown were exactly the same as those existing when the parcel was handed over by the complainant,\u201d the commission observed.The commission said the videos and photographs did show differences between the product when it was packed and when it was later inspected. But they did not establish that the scratches or missing accessories were caused by Rao.\u201cOnce the returned parcel had been collected, it remained outside the physical custody of the Complainant until the subsequent quality check. In the absence of an uninterrupted record sufficiently connecting the condition of the parcel at handover with the condition subsequently shown during inspection, the specific allegations against the Complainant cannot safely be treated as established,\u201d the bench added.The commission also said Rao had not produced expert evidence to establish that the sunglasses were counterfeit or not genuine. Therefore, it did not record any finding that the product supplied was non-genuine.It rejected the company’s argument that its status as an intermediary completely absolved it of responsibility. The commission said the company had communicated the return pickup and later communicated the rejection of the refund.\u201cHowever, having taken back the product and thereafter refused refund, the grounds relied upon for such refusal were required to be satisfactorily established. As discussed above, the evidence produced does not sufficiently establish that the alleged damaged or incomplete condition of the returned product was attributable to the complainant,\u201d the bench further noted.It said the sunglasses remained with the seller after the refund was rejected while the customer was also denied his Rs 17,839. The commission held that withholding both the product and the money amounted to deficiency in service.What did the consumer commission order?<\/span>The Ranga Reddy district consumer commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the online marketplace to:<\/p>\n

\n