The Commission noted that the complainant had attached a copy of the invoice, a screenshot of the order confirmation page, and a photograph of the consignment showing the name of the addressee as that of another person in Aurangabad.
Based on this and the fact that the evidence was not rebutted by Myntra, the Court concluded that Myntra’s service was deficient.
In response to Myntra’s claim that it was only an intermediary, the Court said that when the tax invoice clearly indicated that the product was being sold through Myntra, it could not escape from its liability.
Source: Barandbench
