Failure to fulfil ‘buy one get one free’ offer costs Lenskart Rs 20,000 in consumer case

4 min readNew DelhiJun 20, 2026 12:00 PM IST

The consumer forum directed Lenskart to pay Rs 20,000 to the customer. (Image source: Lenskart website)

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nellore, has directed Lenskart to pay Rs 20,000 to a customer as compensation and litigation costs after holding the company guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to honour its “buy one get one free” promotional offer.

A bench of president G Ravi Sankar and member G Bala Sudha noted that the conduct of the company fell within the ambit of unfair trade practice.

“Attractive advertisements and promotional offers are intended to induce customers to purchase goods and services and later failure to provide the promised products after collecting consideration amounts is misleading representation and unfair trade practice,” the commission observed in its order dated May 20.

‘Buy one get one free offer’

According to the complaint, the customer visited Lenskart’s Nellore showroom on March 15, 2025, after seeing the company’s promotional offer that promised an additional optical item free with the purchase of one at the fixed price. He paid Rs 3,000 and received an order confirmation.

He alleged that when he visited the store to collect the products after receiving the collection code, he was handed only one optical item.

On questioning the store staff, he was allegedly informed that the issue was due to a technical mistake and was assured that the second item would be delivered later.

The complainant alleged that despite repeated reminders and visits to the showroom, Lenskart neither delivered the second item nor refunded the full amount.

Instead, it refunded only Rs 1,500, leaving the remaining amount unpaid. He also alleged that the delay, repeated visits and the conduct of the store caused him financial loss, mental agony and harassment.

It was submitted that Lenskart was giving evasive replies for the remaining amount of Rs 1,500 and making the complainant to wander to the Store.

Although notice was served, Lenskart did not contest the proceedings before the commission.

Rs 20,000 awarded

At the outset the commission held that the complainant was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

“The order particulars and payment details furnished by the complainant remained unchallenged. So, the complainant is consumer under the Consumer Protection Act,” the order read.

The commission held that promotional assurances form part of the contractual obligation between the opposite parties and the complainant and once the complainant acts upon the representations and pay considerations, the opposite parties are legally bound to honour the offer.

It noted that the opposite parties had admitted the error by assuring delivery of the second item and subsequently refunding only half the purchase price.

Story continues below this ad

“It is also significant to note that the opposite parties subsequently refunded only Rs.1,500/- out of Rs.3,000/- paid by the complainant. This partial refund made by the opposite parties amounts to implied admission and deficiency in rendering service. The conduct of the opposite parties in neither supplying the 2nd item nor refunding the entire consideration amount clearly amounts deficiency in service,” the commission remarked.

It further observed that attractive advertisements and promotional offers are intended to induce consumers to purchase goods and services, and failure to provide the promised products after collecting the full consideration constitutes misrepresentation and an unfair trade practice.

The commission noted that despite service of notices from the commission Lenskart remained absent and failed to contest the matter. It added that their silence strengthened the case of the complainant.

Holding Lenskart liable, the commission directed the company to refund the remaining Rs 1,500 with 9 per cent annual interest from March 15, 2025, until realisation.

Story continues below this ad

It also ordered Lenskart to pay Rs 15,000 as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and harassment, along with Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.

The commission ordered that the directions are to be complied with within 45 days from receipt of the order.

Takeaway

The ruling highlights that businesses cannot use promotional offers as mere marketing tools and then fail to honour them after consumers have paid. The commission made it clear that advertisements and “buy one get one free” schemes create binding obligations, and reneging on such promises amounts to both deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. The decision also signals that companies risk compensation and litigation costs for failing to deliver advertised benefits.

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