Consumer Commission Orders Refund and Compensation for Misleading Saree Sale

In a significant ruling, the Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered BharatSthali, an online saree retailer, to refund Rs 31,600 to Dr. Archana Thakur for delivering a saree that did not match its advertisement. The case highlights the importance of consumer rights and the responsibilities of online sellers. Dr. Thakur's complaint arose after receiving a saree that was not only different in color but also of inferior quality. Despite attempts to resolve the issue directly with BharatSthali, the lack of response led her to seek legal recourse. The commission's decision underscores the need for accountability in e-commerce transactions.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jun 28, 2025, 16:20 IST

Consumer Dispute Resolution in Kangra District

S Gopal Puri

Dharamshala: The Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has mandated BharatSthali, an online retailer of handloom sarees located in Manimajra, Chandigarh, to reimburse a consumer and provide compensation totaling Rs 31,600 due to a product mismatch with the advertisement.

This ruling, issued on June 26, 2025, relates to complaint No. 216/2024, which was lodged by Dr. Archana Thakur, a resident of Pandtehar village in the Baijnath tehsil of Kangra district, with the assistance of her lawyer, Advocate Abhinash Parmar.

According to the complaint, Dr. Thakur ordered a royal blue Banarasi silk saree featuring meena work from BharatSthali's website on August 21, 2023, for which she paid Rs 11,610 online. However, upon delivery on August 29, the saree was found to be completely different in both color and quality, exhibiting loose threads and subpar meena work, failing to resemble the online image.

Despite multiple requests for an exchange or refund, BharatSthali allegedly disregarded her complaints. Frustrated by the lack of response, Dr. Thakur escalated the matter to the consumer commission.

BharatSthali, located at SCO 842, Housing Board Lights, near Octave and Monte Carlo, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh, 160101, initially disputed the claim, asserting that the order was placed by Dr. Thakur's husband from Canada. However, the commission determined that since the product was delivered to and utilized by Dr. Thakur, she was recognized as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

After BharatSthali failed to present evidence during the final hearing, the commission proceeded without their input and deemed the complaint valid. The commission acknowledged the saree's sentimental value as a gift from Dr. Thakur's husband, noting that the seller's refusal to refund or replace the defective item resulted in mental distress and harassment.

The Commission ordered BharatSthali to refund Rs 11,610 with an annual interest rate of 9% from the date of the complaint, in addition to Rs 10,000 for mental anguish and Rs 10,000 to cover litigation expenses.