JioMart ordered Rs 4,219 payout after delivering one sandal pair instead of two

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed JioMart and Auvio Enterprise to refund Rs 219 along with Rs 2000 as compensation and Rs 2000 as litigation costs to a man who had ordered two pairs of men’s sandals, but received only one pair.

P V Jayarajan (President), Members Preetha G Nair and Viju V R noted that the opposite party did not produce any counter evidence against the complainant’s claim.

“As the mental agony and financial loss was caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, we find that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant,” the commission said on June 5.

He paid Rs 438 for two pairs of sandals, received only one. (AI-generated image)

Ordered two chappals, received one

On February 14, 2023, the complainant placed an order for two pairs of Bride Men’s black sandals through the Jio Mart Online shopping platform.

The complainant stated that he placed orders for two pairs of chappals but was served with only one pair.

The complainant submitted that the opposite party collected the price for two pairs of chappals but delivered only one pair.

The complainant approached the opposite parties with his grievances, but they did not take any steps to facilitate the complainant.

The complainant submitted that the opposite parties were not ready to refund or replace the product in spite of the requests made by the complainant.

According to the complainant, the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence the complainant approached this commission for redressing his grievances.

Both opposite parties were declared ex parte, and there was no written version from the side of the opposite parties.

One pair of missing sandals

The complainant had filed a complaint under Section 35 (manner in which complaint shall be made) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

He had alleged that he had ordered two pairs of sandals and paid for them, but only one pair was delivered to him, and when he requested a refund, his request was ignored.

After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties to appear before this commission, but both the parties, after accepting the notice, failed to appear.

Subsequently, JioMart filed an application on May 13, 2025, with a prayer to set aside the ex parte order, but after hearing the matter, this commission dismissed that application on the ground that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which empowers the district commission to set aside an ex parte order.

‘Complainant suffered mental agony’

The significant question before the Thiruvananthapuram District Consumer Court was whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, and whether he was entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint, and to decide the cost for the same.

Story continues below this ad

The Thiruvananthapuram District Consumer Court noted the exhibits produced by the complainant, including the tax invoice for an amount of Rs 438 and a photograph of one pair of chappal issued by the complainant.

The commission observed that no documents were provided by the opposite parties, and that proves that the complainant had ordered two chappals but received only one pair of chappals by collecting the price for two pairs of chappals.

The commission found that the complainant had succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite parties, and from the available evidence it was found that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

No contrary evidence

It is also evident from the evidence adduced by the complainant that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the act of the opposite parties, the commission said.

Story continues below this ad

As the mental agony and financial loss were caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the commission found that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.

The Thiruvananthapuram District Consumer Court observed that there was no contrary evidence from the side of the opposite parties to discredit the evidence produced by the complainant, so it stands unchallenged.

The commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund Rs.219 along with Rs.2,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 being the litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the order till the date of realization/remittance.