Myntra and Titan Held Liable by Udupi District Commission

Myntra and Titan Held Accountable by Udupi District Commission for Sending Wrong Watch Instead of Tommy Hilfiger

July 2, 2024

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Udupi, Karnataka, chaired by Sunil T. Masaraddi (President) and Sujata B. Koralli (Member), held Myntra and Titan accountable for their failure to provide the correct product as per the order. The commission found them responsible for deficient services after Myntra delivered a watch branded ‘Abbas’ instead of the Tommy Hilfiger watch ordered by the complainant, valued at Rs. 15,495. Upon discovering the error, the complainant promptly contacted Myntra’s customer support to initiate a return and refund process. Although Myntra initially acknowledged the return request, they later claimed it was on hold citing quality concerns. Dissatisfied with this response, the complainant escalated the matter by filing a consumer complaint against Myntra and TITAN Company Ltd., the parent company of Tommy Hilfiger India, with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Udupi.

Myntra countered by asserting its role solely as an intermediary in the transaction, invoking Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to absolve itself from liability. The company argued that the complaint omitted crucial details and failed to provide evidence of negligence or deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Myntra further contended that it bears no responsibility for quality or delivery issues pertaining to products sold by third-party sellers on its platform.

“Titan did not attend the proceedings before the District Commission.”

Findings of the District Commission

The District Commission cited Clause 12 of Myntra’s Terms of Use, which acknowledged the platform’s liability for products bought through its service. Despite Myntra’s claim that the purchase amount had been refunded, the District Commission noted inconsistencies in its responses regarding refund conditions. Referring to a precedent set by the Chandigarh State Commission in Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. vs. Monika Thakur, the District Commission emphasized that the platform is responsible for ensuring correct product delivery to consumers.

The District Commission ruled that both Myntra and Titan were collectively responsible for the deficiency in service. As a result, they were directed to refund Rs. 15,495/- to the complainant along with 10% annual interest. Furthermore, acknowledging the mental distress caused to the complainant by the incorrect delivery and ensuing dispute, the District Commission ordered Myntra and Titan to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental anguish and an additional Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation costs.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in