State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jatin Bansal S/O. Krishan Kumar vs Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt Ltd on 11 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/4/CC/64/2025
JATIN BANSAL S/o. Krishan Kumar
PRESENT ADDRESS - CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
LUXOTTICA INDIA EYEWEAR PVT LTD
PRESENT ADDRESS - CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH , MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
JATIN BANSAL S/o. Krishan Kumar
DATED: 11/03/2026
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH ============ Consumer Complaint No. : 64 of 2025 Date of Institution : 26.06.2025 Date of Decision : 11.03.2026 Jatin Bansal S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar, resident of H.No. 320-A, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh - 160009.
.....Complainant V ERSUS
1. Luxottica India Eyewear Private Limited, through its Authorized Signatory, 7th Floor, DLF Building No.9, Tower B, Phase-III, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana, India.
2. Akash Goyle, Managing Director, Luxottica India Eyewear Private Limited, 7th Floor, DLF Building No.9, Tower B, Phase-III, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana, India.
3. Moda Optics, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory 30/31, 2nd Floor, Sai Krupa, Kothnur Dinne Main Road, JP Nagar, 8th Phase, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560076, India.
4. August Purple Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, 701 to 714, Tower-C, 7th Floor Diamond District, Airport Road, Kodihalli Bangalore KA 560008 IN.
5. Green Honchos, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory, 3rd Floor, B-24, Block-B, Noida, Sector 3, Noida, Uttar Pradesh - 201301.
.....Opposite Parties.
6. Blue Dart Express Ltd., through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory, having its Registered Office at SCO 165 & 166, Ground Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh - 160009.
..... Proforma Opposite Party.
BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT
PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER
ARGUED BY : Sh. Jatin Bansal, Complainant in person.
Sh. Aman Arora, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.
Ms. Manju Goyal, Advocate for OP No.3 (on V.C).
OPs No.4 & 5 proceeded against ex-parte vide order dt.1.10.2025.
OP No.6 proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.2025.
PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT Briefly stated, the Complainant, Sh.Jatin Bansal, purchased a pair of RB8356M SCUDERIA FERRARI COLLECTION eyewear for a total consideration of Rs.21,890/- on 26.02.2024 via the website www.india.ray-ban.com (Order ID #000052072), with Invoice #000004636 subsequently issued on 09.04.2024. Upon delivery, the Complainant found the product to be of substandard quality and of a different color than the one described online; consequently, he initiated a return request under the "7 Days"
easy return policy, providing photographic evidence as requested by the Opposite Parties (OPs). After the OPs verified and approved the request, the product was picked up by the authorized courier, Blue Dart Express Ltd., on 29.03.2024; however, on 03.04.2024, the OPs arbitrarily refused a refund via email, claiming the product failed a quality check because it differed from the original order the very discrepancy that formed the basis of the return. Despite the Complainant's efforts to resolve the matter and the issuance of a Legal Notice on 25.06.2024, to which the OPs issued denials on 17.07.2024 and 22.07.2024, no refund or replacement has been provided for over 12 months, leading the Complainant to seek redress for "unfair trade practices," "deficiency in services," and "unfair contracts" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, claiming the following reliefs:-
i. Set aside the Unfair Clauses in the terms and conditions/ Unfair Trade Policy/Contract (Exhibit C-10) of the Opposite Parties, as mentioned and impugned in the Complaint and declare these unfair clauses in the terms and conditions/unfair contract null and void under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019;
ii. Direct the Opposite Parties to refund the paid-up consideration paid by the Complainant amounting to Rs.21,890/- along with an interest @ 18% from the date of the payment of the product made by the complainant;
iii. Direct the OPs to pay Rs.5 Lac as compensation to the Complainant for the financial harassment and mental agony, inconvenience suffered by him during this period;
iv. Direct the OPs to pay legal costs to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for the present Complaint;
v. Further, the OPs should be penalized with an amount Rs.50 Lakhs for engaging in unfair trade practices and deficiency in services and failing to adhere the to the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019;
vi. Any other direction which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play.
2) Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3) The opposite parties No.1 & 2 in their joint written reply, contend that the complaint is a "frivolous and malicious" attempt at "unjust enrichment," asserting that the Complainant was duly supplied the genuine Grey Ray-Ban Scuderia Ferrari eyewear (SKU 0RB8356MF6565J61) valued at Rs.21,890/- in a sealed, untampered condition, but fraudulently returned a counterfeit Blue-colored eyewear while retaining the original. They argue that the Blue variant (SKU 0RB8356MF6218061) is priced lower at Rs.17,590/-, making the Complainant's claim of a mistaken delivery logically and financially impossible. To support this, the OPs rely on a Product Quality Analysis Report dated 08.07.2024 (Exhibit OP1/5), which concluded the returned item was counterfeit due to the absence of the Ray-Ban logo, the missing RFID tracking chip, incorrect temple colors, and an unauthorized SKU code (RB8356M F647/H2 61 18 135). Furthermore, the OPs challenge the Commission's jurisdiction, labeling the Complainant a chronic litigant and asserting that Luxottica India (OP No. 1) handles only distribution and warranty, while Moda Optics (OP No. 3) manages all retail operations, thereby making the allegations of deficiency against the brand owners misconceived.
Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4) Opposite Party No. 3 (Moda Optics), filed its separate written version, inter alia, challenges the maintainability of the complaint, characterizing it as a clear case of "forum shopping" and a "jurisdictional artifice" designed to bypass the District Commission by baselessly alleging "unfair trade practice." The answering OP asserts that as a high-value retailer, it follows a stringent security protocol where the entire packaging and dispatch process is video-recorded to ensure that genuine products specifically the Ray-Ban Scuderia Ferrari eyewear with intact MRP stickers and RFID tags are sent in sealed, tamper proof conditions. They further contend that their mandatory "unboxing videography" of the returned inward package proves the Complainant substituted the original item with a counterfeit/spurious product lacking the Ray-Ban logo and proper labeling. Denying any "deficiency in service," OP No. 3 maintains that the Complainant has approached the Commission with "unclean hands" to facilitate a fraudulent scheme of "unjust enrichment," seeking to retain the original luxury goods while simultaneously demanding a refund for a substituted fake. Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied by the Opposite Party No.3 and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
5) However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of OPs No.4 & 5 and OP No.6, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 01.10.2025 and 21.11.2025 respectively.
6) In the separate rejoinders filed, the Complainant reiterated all the averments contained in the Complaint and specifically controverted the averments and contentions raised by Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 and Opposite Party No. 3.
7) The parties led evidence, in support of their case and also filed written arguments.
8) We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of this case, including the written arguments, very carefully.
9) Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, this Commission would like to discuss the pecuniary jurisdiction to try this complaint.
10) Undisputedly, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.21,890/- which suits the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission. But in the present complaint has been instituted by the Complainant invoking the provisions of Section 47(1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), contending that certain stipulations incorporated in the Terms and Conditions of the Opposite Parties amount to an "unfair contract" within the meaning of Section 2(46) of the Act and are, therefore, liable to be declared null and void.
11) It is necessary to reproduce relevant provisions of Section 47 of CPA 2019, which reads thus:-
".........47. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain --
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;
(ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees; appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State...
(iii) xxxxxx........."
12) A bare perusal of Section 47 (1) (a) (ii) provides that this Commission shall also have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint(s) against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees, (pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission has now been decreased to rupees two crore vide Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021 dated 30.12.2021. Definition of "unfair contract" has been provided under Section 2 (46) of CPA 2019, which reads thus:-
(46) "unfair contract" means a contract between a manufacturer or trader or service provider on one hand, and a consumer on the other, having such terms which cause significant change in the rights of such consumer, including the following, namely:--
(i) requiring manifestly excessive security deposits to be given by a consumer for the performance of contractual obligations; or
(ii) imposing any penalty on the consumer, for the breach of contract thereof which is wholly disproportionate to the loss occurred due to such breach to the other party to the contract; or
(iii) refusing to accept early repayment of debts on payment of applicable penalty; or
(iv) entitling a party to the contract to terminate such contract unilaterally, without reasonable cause; or
(v) permitting or has the effect of permitting one party to assign the contract to the detriment of the other party who is a consumer, without his consent; or
(vi) imposing on the consumer any unreasonable charge, obligation or condition which puts such consumer to disadvantage...."
13) The Complainant has specifically impugned the clauses enumerated in paragraph 17 of the complaint, which, according to him, operate to the detriment of consumer rights and are reproduced hereunder for the purpose of examination:-
Return Policy Refund and Replacement Clause: Where request for return of any product is accepted by Moda Optics, then, Moda Optics shall refund the value of such product as originally paid by you in such manner as it deems fit as its sole discretion.
Legal Terms of Use (TOU) Clause: Product Description: Green Honchos does not warrant that product description or other content of this Website is accurate, complete, reliable, current or error free and assumes no liability in this regard.
Clause: Limitation of Liability: In no event shall Green Honchos be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind in connection with these terms of use, even if user has been informed in advance of the possibility of such damages.
Legal Terms and Conditions of Sale Clause 1: Terms of Sale of Products on the Website: Sub clause 5: Moda Optics does not guarantee delivery of the Product within the indicated time period, and time is not of essence in the contract for purchase and sale of Products on the Website.
Clause 3: General Terms About Our Relationship with You:
Sub clause 1: Limitation of Liability: In no event shall Moda Optics be liable for any indirect, punitive, incidental, special, or consequential damages arising out of or in anyway connected with the use of the website, or any goods purchased from the website, whether based in contract, tort, strict liability, or otherwise. Notwithstanding the foregoing, total liability of Moda Optics for any reason whatsoever related to use of the website or goods purchased from the website shall not exceed the total amount paid by you to us in connection with the subject matter of the particular dispute.
Sub clause 2: Warranties/ Repairs Requirements: Except as otherwise expressly set forth:
(I) This website and all goods purchased by you through the website are provided on an "As-Is" Basis; and (II) Moda Optics makes no representations or warranties about the website or any goods purchased by you through the website for any purpose, and expressly disclaims all express warranties or warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
Sub clause 8: Governing law: This agreement and all rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India. The parties (Moda Optics and You, the user/ buyer) agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts in Bangalore, Karnataka to the exclusion all other courts.
The Complainant contends that these clauses significantly curtail consumer rights and therefore fall within the ambit of Section 2(46), thereby attracting the jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 47(1)(a)(ii).
14) Section 47(1)(a)(ii) of the Act confers jurisdiction upon the State Commission to entertain complaints, inter alia, relating to unfair contracts subject to the prescribed pecuniary limits. The said provision is jurisdictional in character and does not automatically invalidate any contractual clause unless such clause squarely falls within the statutory definition of an "unfair contract."
15) Section 2(46) defines an "unfair contract" as a contract between a manufacturer/trader/service provider and a consumer having such terms which cause a significant change in the rights of such consumer, including the categories specifically enumerated therein. The definition being statutory must be strictly construed. However, in this case there is no concluding contract between the complainant and the opposite parties.
16) Before placing the order with the opposite parties, the complainant has accepted the aforesaid conditions as narrated in Para No.17 of the complaint. Therefore, he is now estopped from challenging the same at this stage. Moreover, mere dissatisfaction with contractual terms voluntarily accepted at the time of transaction cannot render them unlawful or unenforceable.
17) In view of the foregoing discussion, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Complainant has failed to bring the impugned clauses within the ambit of Section 2(46) of the Act. Consequently, the invocation of Section 47(1)(a)(ii) is misconceived and untenable.
18) However, it is also a matter of record that the complaint has remained pending before this Commission since 26.06.2025. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that the parties are not compelled to initiate fresh litigation, it deems appropriate to remit the matter to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, having competent pecuniary jurisdiction, for adjudication and disposal in accordance with law.
19) It is clarified that this Commission has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations relating to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
20) Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, on 25.03.2026, for further proceedings.
21) The entire record of the case be transmitted forthwith to the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh along with certified copy of this order, so as to reach there well before the date fixed.
22) Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
23) Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge forthwith.
24) File be consigned to Record Room after completion.
Pronounced
11.03.2026
..................
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI
PRESIDENT
..................
PREETINDER SINGH
MEMBER