Hyderabad consumer panel orders refund, ₹20,000 compensation in Shopceecee dispute
HYDERABAD: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad, has directed an online footwear seller to refund ₹6,700 and pay ₹20,000 compensation to a Secunderabad-based student after finding deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
The order, pronounced on March 9, 2026, also awarded ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. The commission gave the opposite parties 45 days to comply, failing which interest at 9% per annum will apply on the refund and compensation amounts.
Student alleges wrong size, delayed delivery and refund denial
The complainant, A. Riya, 19, a student from Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad, had purchased “Pin Me Square-Toe Flats” from an online seller, Shopceecee.com, on September 18, 2025, for ₹6,700.
She stated that she had shared her foot measurements (24.5 cm–25 cm) in advance and was assured that size-related exchanges would be allowed. Despite this, the seller dispatched an incorrect size and later denied receiving the measurements, according to the complaint.
The commission noted inconsistencies in the seller’s size claims, with different size conversions being communicated at different times, leading to confusion.
Delivery was also delayed. Though the order was placed on September 18, the product was shipped only on September 27 and delivered on October 1, after repeated follow-ups by the complainant.
Replacement also defective, extra charges demanded
After receiving the wrong size, the complainant returned the product. A replacement was delivered on October 22, but it was again oversized and allegedly damaged due to improper packaging.
The complainant sought a refund citing defects and policy violations, but the seller refused, offering only discounts on future purchases.
The commission recorded that the seller later demanded an additional ₹4,000 for resizing, which was not part of the original agreement.
Panel flags violation of consumer and packaging laws
The commission observed that the product lacked proper labelling, including description and maximum retail price, in violation of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
It also noted failure to adhere to promised timelines, misleading communication, and non-compliance with exchange policies.
The opposite parties did not appear before the commission or file a written response.
Deficiency in service established, relief granted
Based on the evidence, including invoices and chat records, the commission held that the seller failed to deliver the correct product and engaged in unfair trade practices.
“The purpose of placing the order is defeated as the product was delivered belatedly and not as per the size opted,” the commission observed.
It partly allowed the complaint and ordered refund, compensation, and costs.
