- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
DCDRC Holds Nykaa Liable For Failing To Deliver The Product And Not Processing Refund Promptly
DCDRC Holds Nykaa Liable For Failing To Deliver The Product And Not Processing Refund Promptly
Orders it to pay Rs.4000 to the complainant for mental agony and litigation costs
The Chandigarh bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I has held Nykaa liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver the ordered product and refunding the amount after one month.
The complainant was enticed by the deals on the Nykaa app and placed an order for which an invoice of Rs.2823.24 was generated. She paid via an online transaction.
After placing the order, the complainant contacted Nykaa through its help centre to inquire about the status of the order. Nykaa responded that her request was forwarded to the team for urgent delivery. The company advised her to check the status through the mobile app.
However, the complainant found that the order status was static and the product remained undelivered.
After interactions, Nykaa refunded the amount to the complainant, who argued that the delayed response constituted a deficiency in service.
Aggrieved by Nykaa’s service, she approached the DCDRC.
In response, Nykaa argued that a full refund of Rs.2824.21 was credited to the complainant's bank account. It added that since the refund was processed, there was no cause of action against it. The company claimed it acted as an intermediary and should not be held liable for service deficiency.
The Coram of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) noted that even after a month, Nykaa neither delivered the products nor refunded the amount to the complainant. It was only after the complainant issued a legal notice that the amount was refunded by Nykaa.
The bench held that Nykaa failed to update the status of the complainant's order or deliver the products for a month. It stated that the company unjustifiably withheld the complainant's money. The refund was processed only after the complainant sent a legal notice. This meant that Nykaa was liable for deficiency in service.
The District Commission directed Nykaa to pay Rs.4000 to the complainant as composite compensation for the mental agony, harassment, and litigation expenses.