A Kerala consumer commission has found an e-commerce website and the seller deficient in service and guilty of unfair trade practices after finding that a woman ordered a phone for her child’s studies in 2025 but received a dummy phone of another brand instead. It directed the e-commerce website and seller to pay Rs 18,514 to the woman for the inconvenience. President Sholy P R and member Lekhamma C K of the Alappuzha District Consumer Commission noted that the parcel also contained an invoice for a different order, which the e-commerce website failed to satisfactorily explain.“The conduct of opposite parties 1 and 4 (e-commerce website and seller) amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Their failure to replace the wrongly supplied product or refund the amount paid by the complainant has caused her unnecessary inconvenience and hardship,” the August 13 order read.‘Dummy phone received inside parcel’The woman claimed that she purchased a phone online from the e-commerce website for Rs 11,499 on August 25 for her child’s studies. She paid the amount to the delivery boy when the parcel was delivered. However, when she opened the parcel later, she found a dummy phone of another brand, along with a bill in another person’s name.The woman claimed that she immediately contacted the e-commerce platform and informed it that she had received a dummy phone instead of the phone she had ordered. She asked for the correct phone to be delivered or for her money to be refunded.However, when she tried to return the phone online, the website allegedly showed that it could not be returned because the product was out of stock. The woman said she then realised that she had been cheated.It was added that since the phone was required for her child’s educational needs, she ordered it on the website after borrowing money at interest with great difficulty. She then approached the commission, alleging that the e-commerce website had engaged in unfair trade practices.Story continues below this adE-commerce website’s defenceThe e-commerce website’s representative submitted that purchasing a product from an e-commerce marketplace is similar to purchasing a product from a shopping mall or shopping complex. It was argued that when a customer buys a product from a mall, the payment is made to the seller and not the mall or shopping complex.The website argued that if the product is found to be defective, the customer has to approach the seller directly rather than the owner of the shopping mall or shopping complex.The seller did not appear through a lawyer to contest the case, and the commission proceeded with the matter in its absence.‘Invoice discrepancy not explained’The commission found that there was no satisfactory explanation from the e-commerce website regarding the presence of a different invoice or the discrepancy in the order particulars. It also noted that the woman had produced the dummy phone before the commission.Story continues below this adThe commission found that no evidence was produced by the e-commerce website to disprove the woman’s claim regarding the invoice discrepancy.“The absence of any explanation regarding the discrepancy in the invoice and order particulars assumes significance, particularly when the 1st opposite party (e-commerce website) had control over the processing and delivery of the order. The materials available on record, therefore, indicate negligence in the handling and fulfilment of the complainant’s order,” it noted.The commission found that the e-commerce website took possession of the product, stored it in its warehouse, processed the order and arranged for delivery to the complainant. It held that the website’s role went beyond merely providing an online platform connecting the consumer with an independent seller.The commission directed the e-commerce website to refund Rs 11,514, being the price of the original product, and pay the complainant Rs 6,000 as compensation for deficiency in service. The e-commerce website was also asked to pay the complainant Rs 1,000 towards litigation costs within 30 days. It also allowed the e-commerce website to collect the disputed gadget from the commission.Story continues below this adTakeawayThe ruling highlights that an e-commerce website cannot simply call itself a platform and avoid responsibility for what reaches the consumer. Where it takes control of processing, storing and delivering an order, it can be held responsible for the product delivered to the customer.For consumer-related grievances, individuals can contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and Union territories (Kerala: 1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.