Ordered dress on Instagram, got it 10 months later, consumer wins Rs 10,000 payout

4 min readNew DelhiJun 10, 2026 04:00 PM IST

The woman alleged that there was a ten month delay in delivery of the dress. (Image generated using AI)

A consumer commission in Kerala has directed an online clothing seller to refund the price of a dress ordered through Instagram and to pay compensation and costs amounting to Rs 10,000 after finding a 10-month delivery delay.

A bench comprising president Vinay Menon V, and members Vidya A, and Krishnankutty N K noted that such an inordinate delay is to be treated as a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

“Such an inordinate delay is to be treated as deficiency inservice on the part of the opposite party since any consumer ordering for any product will expect delivery of the same within a reasonable time andhave the right to refuse the same if there is inordinate delay,” the consumer disputes redressal commission, Palakkad noted in its order dated May 15.

Ten-month delay

According to the complaint, the consumer placed an order for a dress through the seller’s Instagram page on August 16, 2024, and paid Rs 807.

The seller’s delivery policy stated that products would be delivered within 90 working days. However, the dress was not delivered within the promised period.

The complainant alleged that despite repeated follow-ups through emails and comments on the seller’s Instagram page, the product was not delivered.

She also approached the Government of India’s consumer helpline but did not receive a satisfactory response, prompting her to move the consumer commission seeking a refund, compensation and litigation costs.

The seller contested the complaint, arguing that the product had eventually been shipped on June 4, 2025, and was ready for delivery on June 9, 2025.

According to the seller, the complainant refused the delivery and returned the item.

The seller maintained that its shipping and refund policies, including possible delays due to availability and processing issues, were clearly disclosed at the time of purchase.

The seller pointed out that due to an unfortunate accident completely beyond its control, some of the fabric stock including the item ordered by the complainant were damaged in the incident and matter was informed to the complainant and she replied to it.

It, therefore, denied deficiency on their part.

The case was referred for mediation, but was not settled.

‘Deficiency in service’

The commission noted that the delay was not justified, even though the invoice contained various clauses about the probable cause of delay in delivery.

“Even though the invoice contain various clauses about the probable cause of delay in delivery, this kind of a delay is not justifiable, may it be due to unexpected reasons like accident and even if it was intimated to the complainant,” the consumer forum noted.

It held that the consumer has the right to refuse to take the delivery if there is an inordinate delay.

The commission, therefore, directed the seller to refund the cost of the product along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum.

Story continues below this ad

It also directed to pay Rs 7,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs 3,000 towards the cost of litigation.

The commission directed the payment to be made within 45 days of receipt of the order, failing which the seller would be liable to pay Rs 500 as solatium per month or part thereof.

Compensation granted after bus leaves early

In another case, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta, directed the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 as costs to a woman who missed a reserved bus after it allegedly passed her boarding point before the scheduled departure time, causing her to miss a hospital appointment.

The order passed by a bench comprising president George Baby and member Nishad Thankappan noted that the departure of a bus before the scheduled time, causing a reserved passenger to miss the service, is a clear case of deficiency in service.

Story continues below this ad

“As per consumer protection act, the departure of a bus before the scheduled time, causing a reserved passenger to miss the service, is a clear case of deficiency in service,” the bench noted in its order dated May 29.

Referring to the Consumer Protection Act, it noted that “deficiency” includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, or manner of performance of a service that is required to be maintained under law.

Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience.

Expertise

Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents.

Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes:

Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity.

Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes:

Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law.

Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates.

Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More

Tags:

consumer court