Groceries are a crucial part of our daily lives and today consumers put all their trust in online grocery services. However, Grofers, a renowned online grocery distributor, recently faced sanctions. This is what happened.
Jump to
- Who was the woman who was awarded compensation?
- Why did grofers deny compensation to the woman?
- How did the fiasco end?
Who was the woman who was awarded compensation?
canva
After he was ordered to repay a Mumbai woman, Kalpana Shah, Rs 8,000. The argument arose when, among other things, a payment of Rs 31 for watermelon seeds not delivered in 2020 was not returned.
Unfortunately, it was later revealed that Shah was a victim of cyber fraud and lost Rs 5,000 after sending an OTP while seeking to get a refund. In 2022, he approached the Mumbai South District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for help. The panel ruled in his favor and ordered Grofers to return the money.
Why did grofers deny compensation to the woman?
canva
According to the Times of India, the woman sought commission in 2022 and explained her situation. After the failed delivery on January 28, 2020, Shah tried many solutions. Despite his attempts, the customer service staff reacted by stating that everything had been delivered correctly according to their records.
They later closed their case, leaving Shah disappointed with their resolution. This development led Shah to seek higher authority regarding his unresolved surrender order.
Kalpana Shah contacted a person representing Grofers, whom she discovered through an online search engine, after seeing the company’s response. The supposed representative of the company called her and offered her two options: “she could get the refund immediately or wait fifteen days to receive the product.” Shah, who opted for the refund, unfortunately lost Rs 5,000 in the process.
Meanwhile, the Commission said, “In the said case, we consider that the opposite party has rendered poor service by showing its harsh attitude towards the complainant.”
How did the fiasco end?
Accordingly, it will be preferable to order the opposite party to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental anguish and Rs 3,000 as litigation costs. In the case of alleged diversion of funds from complainants’ accounts, you should follow up with the relevant investigative authorities for other solutions. Accordingly, the complaint’s request for restitution of the funds taken from the opposing party’s bank account is denied.”
The panel stated that Kalpana Shah should be given a refund of Rs 31 plus 9% interest from January 2020. According to the ruling by the Mumbai South District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Grofers, known as the ” opposing party”, did not meet the requirements. expected service standards and engaged in unfair business practices against the complaint.
What do you think about this? Tell us in the comments.
For more trending stories, follow us on Telegram.
Categories: Trending
Source: vtt.edu.vn