Chandigarh, 12.12.2025 : The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, has held that a seller cannot avoid liability by simply asserting that a refund was processed unless the claim is backed by clear documentary proof. The Commission ruled that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact and that unsupported statements amount to deficiency in service.
The ruling came in a complaint filed by Simranjeet Singh Sidhu against William Penn Pvt. Ltd. and Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd.. The Bench, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), partly allowed the complaint against the seller while dismissing it against the e-commerce platform.
The complainant had ordered a Caran d’Ache 849 ball pen worth ₹1,611 on June 20, 2021 through Flipkart, with William Penn Pvt. Ltd. as the seller. Upon delivery on June 26, 2021, the pen received was of a different colour. A replacement request was initially cancelled, and although a second replacement was accepted, the pen delivered on July 6, 2021 again did not match the ordered specifications, differing in both colour and refill type.
Alleging repeated supply of a non-conforming product and failure to refund the amount, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission claiming deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Flipkart contended that it did not sell products directly to consumers and functioned only as a B2B entity, with the marketplace operated by a separate legal entity. It argued that no contractual liability could therefore be fastened on it. William Penn Pvt. Ltd. admitted the deliveries but maintained that the product supplied was the same model as ordered and that any colour variation could be due to screen resolution. It further claimed that a refund had already been processed on July 9, 2021.
The Commission observed that a mere difference in colour may not, by itself, constitute deficiency in service, especially where the seller is willing to refund the amount. The real issue, however, was whether the claimed refund had actually been made.
On examining the documents produced by the seller, the Commission found that none conclusively showed that the refund amount had been credited to the complainant. The records only reflected internal settlement or return status and were not supported by bank statements, ledger entries, or other financial proof demonstrating actual payment.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahakali Sujatha v. Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., the Commission reiterated the settled principle endorsed by the Supreme Court of India that “he who asserts must prove.” Since the seller had asserted that the refund was processed, the burden lay squarely on it to substantiate the claim with reliable evidence.
In the absence of such proof, the Commission held that withholding the amount amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Accordingly, William Penn Pvt. Ltd. was directed to refund ₹1,611 to the complainant with interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of purchase, and to pay ₹7,000 towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. The complaint against Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed as no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was established against it.
Cause Title: Simranjeet Singh Sidhu v. William Penn Pvt. Ltd. & Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CC/427/2021
Coram: Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President), B.M. Sharma (Member)
