Skip to content

Chita Resident Wins Landmark Refund Case After Seller Fails to Deliver Building Materials

From a dismissed case to a court-ordered refund—how one buyer fought back against an uncooperative seller. The ruling could reshape online marketplace disputes.

there was a room in which people are sitting in the chairs,in front of a table looking into the...
there was a room in which people are sitting in the chairs,in front of a table looking into the laptop and doing something,beside them there are many flee xi in which different advertisements are present which different text.

Chita Resident Wins Landmark Refund Case After Seller Fails to Deliver Building Materials

A resident of Chita has won a legal battle after an online seller failed to deliver building materials for a private house. The case, initially dismissed, was reopened when Russia’s consumer protection agency, Rospotrebnadzor, proved the purchase was for personal use.

The dispute began when the buyer did not receive construction materials by the agreed deadline. The seller refused to terminate the contract or issue a refund, claiming the materials were for commercial use and the case belonged in arbitration court.

Rospotrebnadzor stepped in and filed a lawsuit on the resident’s behalf. The court first issued a default judgment, ordering the seller to pay over 1.2 million rubles ($13,000) in compensation. An additional fine of nearly 400,000 rubles ($4,300) was imposed for ignoring the consumer’s demands. The seller challenged the ruling, but the court later vacated the default judgment and reopened the case. After reviewing evidence, it confirmed the materials were for personal use. The final decision required the seller to refund 504,000 rubles ($5,500), pay penalties of 279,720 rubles ($3,000), and cover 15,000 rubles ($160) for moral damages.

The court’s ruling ensures the resident receives a full refund, penalties, and compensation. The seller, whose identity remains undisclosed, must also pay the earlier fines for non-compliance. The case sets a precedent for consumer rights in online marketplace disputes.

Read also: