Prateek Tanmay
3 min readNew DelhiJul 22, 2026 02:15 PM IST
A district consumer commission in Andhra Pradesh has directed Snapdeal to refund Rs 754 and pay Rs 13,000 to a customer after he allegedly did not receive the five “rare one-rupee notes” he had ordered through the e-commerce platform.
President D Sreedevi and members Y Sundara Rao and Dr S A Sameera held Snapdeal liable for deficiency in service for failing to render the services to the complainant.
“1st opposite party (Snapdeal) solely liable for the deficiency in rendering their service towards the complainant in an unfair manner, liable for appropriate reliefs to the complainant,” the order dated July 13 read.
Delivery gone wrong
The complainant stated that he is in the habit of collecting old and rare currency notes and preserves them in his house. He therefore ordered five rare one-rupee Gandhi notes signed by former Reserve Bank of India Governor I G Patel through the Snapdeal mobile application on October 30, 2024, for Rs 754. The parcel was delivered on November 9, 2024, however, the complainant alleged that after opening the package, he found that the currency notes were missing.
It was stated that he immediately questioned the delivery agent, contacted Snapdeal’s customer service, and later submitted written representations seeking redress, however, he received no response. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant moved consumer commission seeking a refund and compensation.
Snapdeal contested the complaint, arguing that it merely operates an online marketplace connecting buyers and third-party sellers and is protected under the Information Technology Act as an intermediary. It claimed that though it facilitates the online platform, the material is sold by an independent 3rd party seller. Therefore, it sought dismissal of the complaint.
The commission noted that the complainant had videographed opening of the package at the time of delivery in front of the delivery boy. “So, the incident was picturised by the complainant in the presence of 2nd opposite party delivery agent, hence, the 2nd opposite party also came to know that the consignment received by the complainant was not having any required material as per the complainant order,” the order read.
Story continues below this ad
It held that the platform acted in deficient and negligent manner. It further added that the platform failed to render their service to the complainant despite receiving consideration towards their fees.
It held that the opposite party failed to verify the material before delivering it to the complainant, amounting to a deficiency in service. The commission concluded that such negligence entitled the complainant to appropriate relief in order to safeguard the legal rights of consumers.
Allowing the complaint in part, the commission directed Snapdeal to refund Rs 754 with 12 per cent interest from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation. It further directed to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 3,000 towards litigation costs within six weeks. The complaint against the courier company and its branch office was dismissed.
Takeaway
The ruling reiterates that online marketplaces cannot escape liability when customers do not receive the goods they ordered. Failure to verify orders and ensure delivery amounts to a deficiency in service, entitling consumers to compensation.
Story continues below this ad
For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Andhra Pradesh: 0866–2551431) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
