Groceries are an essential part of our daily life and nowadays, people have utmost trust on online grocery services. However, a leading online grocery provider, Grofers, recently faced consequences as they were told to compensate a Mumbai woman, Kalpana Shah, with Rs 8,000. The dispute arose when Rs 31 charge for undelivered watermelon seeds in 2020 wasn’t refunded among other items. Unfortunately, it later came to light that Shah became a victim of cyber fraud, due to which she lost Rs 5,000 after providing an OTP while attempting to get a refund. Seeking a solution, she turned to the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2022. The commission ruled in her favour and asked Grofers to reimburse the amount.
As per Times of India, in 2022, the woman had approached the commission and shared details about her issue. Following the failed delivery on January 28, 2020, Shah made several attempts to address the issue. Despite her efforts, the customer support team responded by asserting that, according to their records, all items were successfully delivered. Later, they closed her complaint from their end, leaving Shah dissatisfied with their resolution. This event led Shah to move towards higher authority regarding her unresolved delivery order.
Upon reviewing the company’s response, Kalpana Shah contacted an individual representing Grofers, whom she found through an online search engine. The alleged company representative contacted her and gave two options, “she could either get a refund immediately or wait for a fortnight to get the product.” Opting for the refund, Shah unfortunately lost Rs 5,000 during the process.
Meanwhile, the Commission said, “In the said case, by showing their harsh approach towards the complainant, we are of the opinion that the opposite party has rendered deficiency in service. Thus, it will be desirable to direct the opposite party to pay towards compensation for mental agony of Rs 5,000 and towards the cost of litigation of Rs 3,000. In the said issue of siphoning of amounts from complainants’ accounts, she needs to follow up with the investigation authorities concerned for further remedies. Complaint’s prayer of reimbursement of siphoned amount from bank account from opposite party is hereby rejected.”
The commission stated that the refund of Rs 31, along with nine percent interest from January 2020, should be provided to Kalpana Shah. South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s decision concluded that Grofers, referred to as the “opposite party,” had failed to meet the expected service standards and had engaged in unfair trade practices concerning the complainant.
Comments
0 comment