A woman has won a Rs 58,000 consumer payout after she allegedly received a “black polythene roll” inside the box, which ought to have ideally contained a wrist watch. The buyer had paid RS 27,000 and purchased the watch on the e-commerce platform. When the issue reached the Visakhapatnam District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, the platform and the supplier were held liable and ordered to pay compensation to her.President Gudla Tanuja and members Varri Krishna Murthy and Rahimunnisa Begum were hearing a complaint filed by a woman seeking compensation for a watch that she had ordered from an e-commerce platform but had received a black-coloured polythene paper roll instead.“Except for the blame game on each other, the 1st and 3rd opposite parties (the watch store and the e-commerce platform, respectively) failed to adduce documentary evidence to the extent of the refund process of the watch in question being the prime concern of the complainant (the woman). The complainant has to suffer for no fault. The online sales mechanism, i.e., the e-commerce entities, instead of being supportive, has turned troublesome in the case at hand; hence, the opposite parties are held liable,” the October 31 order read.The woman claimed she ordered a wristwatch (men’s analogue watch with stainless steel green-coloured dial with a silver-coloured strap) for her son from an e-commerce platform on May 5, 2025, with an expected delivery date of May 12, 2025. The woman stated that, in addition to the watch, she also ordered 1 kg Afghani Anjeer, expected to arrive by May 14, 2025.The woman alleged that on May 11, 2025, two boxes were delivered by the agent of the e-commerce platform; the first box was labelled as ‘watch’ and the second box’s label mentioned fruit.The woman contended that when she and her family members unpacked the boxes, they were shocked to see that there was no watch in the first box but a black coloured polythene paper roll, and the second box contained two plastic jars weighing 250 grams each, which were full of rotten anjeer instead of 1 kg “edible-quality” Afghani Anjeer.The woman said that when she complained about the products to the customer care number of the e-commerce platform, she was dirceted to go to its app and select the ‘return’ option for the watch. Further, the platform said that they would conduct an investigation in the case of the rotten Anjeer. Subsequently, the platform also stated that they had sent a refund for the Anjeer, but the woman claimed that she never received any refund.Story continues below this adAccording to the woman, the return of the watch was approved on May 13, 2025, and the item was picked up by the agent. The woman then noticed that the e-commerce platform had deleted the order details of the watch from the order history, and for Afghani Anjeer, it showed that the amount had been refunded, which was not reflected in the e-commerce platform’s transaction history. The woman was then forced to buy the same watch from a showroom.‘Parcel intact’Advocates I Murthy and V Shiva Ram, appearing for the watch store which had supplied the watch, argued that the store had duly packed the genuine branded wrist watch ordered by the woman in proper condition and handed over the parcel intact to the authorised logistics partner of the e-commerce platform.The counsel submitted that the responsibility of the store ended when the parcel was given to the logistics chain and the e-commerce platform was then responsible for safe carriage, custody and delivery of the product to the woman. The counsel also stated that when the store received the returned parcel and noticed that the watch was missing, they promptly raised a complaint with the e-commerce platform, which approved the same through email.Advocate P Sridhar Manikanta, appearing for the e-commerce platform, submitted that when the woman raised her grievances, the platform conducted an internal enquiry and learned that the correct product was packed, shipped, and delivered to her in an intact and untampered condition.Story continues below this adThe counsel urged that the return and refund of the watch remained incomplete because the e-commerce platform came to know after the pickup that the woman had returned the wrong product. The counsel argued that while placing the order for the watch, the woman had agreed to the return and replacement policy, according to which the refund and replacement of the watch would only happen if the right product was returned. The counsel also stated that the e-commerce platform had processed a full refund for the Afghani Anjeer.‘Failure to refund’The district consumer commission noted that both the watch store and the e-commerce platform had failed to give any evidence regarding the refund process of the watch and that the “unmarked documents are testimonial to that of the receipt of consideration amount and failure to refund.”The bench observed that although the woman had given the transaction details of the Anjeer in the complaint, she failed to give any evidence and took the plea that the e-commerce platform had erased the history of the order placed. Accordingly, the commission was of the view that the woman deserved a refund of the money paid for the watch only and directed the watch store and the e-commerce platform to refund Rs 27,000 to the woman.The district commission also directed the store and the platform to pay Rs 21,000 as compensation to the woman, along with Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses.Story continues below this adTakeawayThe ruling establishes the obligation of e-commerce to ensure that proper products are delivered to the consumers and that the concerns of the consumers must not be ignored, causing them unnecessary inconvenience.For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Andhra Pradesh: 1800-11-4000) and union territories or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.Don’t miss out on these stories:AIIMS Rishikesh ordered to pay Rs 60,000 after ‘wrongly declaring’ man as HIV positiveWoman fitted with Rs 2.45 lakh ‘defective dentures’, dentist ordered to pay Rs 3.15 lakhStory continues below this adTickets confirmed 4 hours before departure, man takes flight: Railways to pay Rs 19,700