“The conduct of the opposite party (FirstCry.com) in cancelling the order, withholding the refund, taking inconsistent stands, and marking the order as “fraud order” without due process amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Such action also affects the dignity and reputation of the complainant, causing mental agony,” the May 25 order read. 

The commission was hearing the complaint filed by the complainant, seeking a refund of Rs 2,130, which he alleged was illegally withheld after cancellation of his order. 

‘Previous order refunded after verification’

• The commission noted that the justification given by the company that the complainant had returned incorrect products in a previous order is unsupported by any evidence placed on record. 
• It was found that the company admitted that the earlier returned products were accepted and refunds were processed. 
• It was held that once refunds were issued after verification, it was not open to the company to later allege that the returned products were incorrect and deny the refund in a subsequent transaction. 
• The commission noted that the company’s representative previously proposed a settlement by offering a refund of Rs 2,190 along with compensation of Rs 15,000.
• It was added that a service provider operating through an online platform is expected to maintain proper and retrievable records. 
• It was held that this offer of refund along with compensation made by the said company during prè-litigation interaction amounts to an implied admission of deficiency in service.  
• The consumer body directed Firstcry.com to pay Rs 2,130 along with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the order placed till the realisation to the complainant. 
• Firstcry.com was further directed to pay Rs 50,000 towards mental agony and Rs 5,000 toward costs of the case within 45 days. 
• The commission also directed that Firstcry.com be directed to curb such unfair trade practices. 

Order placed in 2024, refund adjusted against issue in 2023 

The complainant placed an order on FirstCry.com on December 1, 2024, for a children’s tricycle and paid an amount of Rs 2,130. The payment was successfully debited. However, on the very next day, it was alleged that FirstCry.com cancelled the said order without assigning any reason or issuing any prior notice.

Despite such cancellation, it was alleged that the amount paid by the complainant was not refunded. Upon contacting customer care, the complainant was allegedly informed that the said amount was adjusted against a previous order placed in 2023, alleging that a wrong product had been returned in that transaction. 

The complainant, however, denied the said allegation and asserted that the earlier return had been duly accepted after pickup and warehouse quality verification, in accordance with the company’s own policy. It was further claimed by the company that at no point in time was any email, call, or written communication issued to the complainant alleging wrong return in respect of the earlier transaction. 

It was further added that the complainant has neither received the ordered tricycle nor the refund, thereby suffering financial loss and mental distress. 

It was claimed that by cancelling a valid order, withholding the refund amount, and arbitrarily branding the complainant as a “fraud” in its internal system without issuing any notice, conducting any inquiry, or providing any supporting material, the company has acted in a wholly unjust, arbitrary, and unlawful manner. It was added that such conduct amounts to defamation, deficiency in service, and an unfair trade practice. 

Aggrieved by this conduct of the company, the complainant has filed this present complaint seeking refund of the amount, compensation, and other appropriate reliefs for the wrongful acts. 

The complainant was represented by advocate K Krishna Chaitanya.

FirstCry’s defence

Representing FirstCry.com, advocate K Sudhakar argued that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complaint has been filed by the present complainant, whereas the orders and invoices stand in the name of some other person, who is the actual consumer. 

It was stated that the said products were duly delivered and that refunds were processed after the return requests were approved and the pickups were completed. 

It was further contended that upon subsequent warehouse verification in 2023, it was discovered that the complainant had returned products that were not FirstCry products. It was added that the returned items did not match the original products in terms of tags, barcodes, and physical characteristics, and therefore indicated a fraudulent return intended to obtain wrongful refunds while retaining the genuine products. 

It was further added that upon detection of the alleged fraudulent activity, its internal fraud detection system triggered the cancellation of the subsequent order of December 2024, relating to the Dash Star Duke Tricycle valued at Rs 2,130. 

It was stated that the said amount was adjusted/recovered towards the alleged loss caused by the earlier fraudulent returns, and the order was internally flagged as a “fraud user order cancel”. 

The company asserted that its actions were bona fide, in accordance with its internal policies and verification procedures, and denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. 

Significance of ruling

This ruling reflects that an e-commerce platform cannot withhold payment for a subsequent order by seeking to recover alleged losses from an earlier transaction, especially when the earlier return had already been accepted and refunded after verification. 

Consumer helpline number of respective state and national consumer commission: For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Andhra Pradesh Consumer Commission Helpline: 0866-2551431) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.