A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled in favour of customer Shaik Altaf in a dispute involving FirstCry. The commission directed the company to refund ₹2,130.06 with interest, pay ₹50,000 compensation for mental agony, and bear ₹5,000 in litigation costs. The case arose after a children’s tricycle order was cancelled and the payment remained unreimbursed. During proceedings, the commission examined FirstCry’s internal classification of the transaction as a “fraud user order cancel” and found deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices. The total relief awarded exceeds ₹55,000.
FirstCry Consumer Case Update: Commission Orders ₹55,000 Relief After Customer Was Internally Tagged as ‘Fraud’ Without Inquiry
A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed FirstCry to pay compensation, refund a cancelled order amount with interest, and bear litigation costs after finding deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices.
The FirstCry consumer dispute has drawn attention after a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled in favour of customer Shaik Altaf, who challenged the cancellation of his order and the withholding of his payment.
The commission directed FirstCry to refund ₹2,130.06 with interest, pay ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony, and bear ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses, taking the total relief to more than ₹55,000.
The dispute arose from an order placed by Shaik Altaf in December 2024 for a children’s tricycle through the FirstCry platform. The payment was made through PhonePe and successfully processed at the time of purchase.
According to the complaint, the order was cancelled within twenty-four hours without any explanation being communicated to Shaik Altaf. The payment amount also remained unreimbursed despite repeated follow-ups with customer support.
Order Cancellation and Fraud Allegation Become Central Issues
During communications with customer care, Shaik Altaf was reportedly informed that the payment had been adjusted against a dispute relating to an earlier transaction during FY23-24.
According to FirstCry’s defence, Shaik Altaf had allegedly returned incorrect products in the earlier transaction while retaining the original goods and claiming a refund. Shaik Altaf denied those allegations before the commission.
The complainant argued that the return process had been completed through FirstCry’s established pickup and warehouse verification procedures and that the refund had been approved only after quality checks.
Shaik Altaf further stated that he had never received any written, verbal, or electronic communication informing him that he was under investigation or accused of any fraudulent conduct.
During the proceedings, records reportedly revealed that the cancelled transaction had been internally classified within FirstCry’s system as a “fraud user order cancel,” a designation that became a significant issue before the commission.
The commission observed that such an internal classification effectively labelled the customer as a fraudster without prior notice, inquiry, investigation, or an opportunity to present his version of events.
Also Read: Thane Central Co-operative Bank Polls Under Public Scrutiny.
Commission Finds Contradictions in FirstCry’s Defence
The commission closely examined FirstCry’s submissions and noted what it described as contradictions in the company’s position regarding the earlier FY23-24 transaction involving Shaik Altaf.
Records before the commission reportedly showed that FirstCry had previously informed the National Consumer Helpline that the earlier refund had been processed after verification and internal review procedures.
However, the company later attempted to rely upon alleged fraud in the same transaction as justification for withholding payment relating to an entirely separate and subsequent purchase.
The commission reportedly found that argument difficult to sustain, observing that a transaction previously cleared through verification could not subsequently be used to penalise a customer without due process.
The proceedings also referred to settlement discussions after the complaint was filed. According to the order, a FirstCry representative allegedly contacted Shaik Altaf on three occasions seeking resolution.
The reported settlement proposal included a refund of ₹2,190 and compensation of ₹15,000. While not treated as an admission of liability, the commission considered the circumstances during its evaluation.
Alternative Defence Rejected by Consumer Commission
FirstCry also argued that the disputed order had not been placed by Shaik Altaf but by another individual identified as Sameer Basha Bamri.
The commission rejected that defence after examining payment records, transaction details, and supporting material submitted by Shaik Altaf, which reportedly established his direct connection to the purchase.
According to the order, a document relied upon by FirstCry in support of its argument was found to be illegible and therefore could not be treated as reliable evidence.
In its final findings, the commission concluded that the cancellation of the order, withholding of the refund, contradictory explanations, and internal fraud classification collectively amounted to a deficiency in service.
The commission further held that the conduct constituted an unfair trade practice under applicable consumer protection laws and warranted both compensatory and corrective directions against the retailer.
FirstCry has been directed to refund ₹2,130.06 with interest at nine per cent per annum from 1 December 2024 until realisation, pay ₹50,000 as compensation, and bear ₹5,000 in litigation costs.
All payments are required to be made within forty-five days. The commission also directed FirstCry to take appropriate measures to prevent similar unfair trade practices in future consumer transactions, a direction that may have implications beyond this individual dispute.
Readers’ Appeal
If you have information, documents, consumer complaints, regulatory records, or evidence relating to e-commerce platforms, consumer rights violations, or unfair trade practices, contact Unmesh Gujarathi, Senior Investigative Journalist, and the Sprouts News Special Investigation Team (SIT). All credible information will be examined in accordance with journalistic and legal standards. Contact: 9322755098.
Editorial Note:
This article is based on publicly available FIR records, court case references, and reports published by multiple media organisations. The information is presented in the context of ongoing investigations and public interest reporting. Sprouts News does not make any judicial determination regarding the individuals mentioned and does not intend to defame any person or organisation. Any individual seeking clarification or wishing to provide an official response may contact the editorial team with verifiable documentation. The information is presented for journalistic and informational purposes.
