A viral social media post has sparked debate over customer service practices after a user alleged that Zepto refused a return because a QR code was missing from the delivered product
NewsFlash Desk: A customer complaint against quick-commerce platform Zepto has gone viral on social media after a user alleged that the company denied a product return despite allegedly delivering the wrong item and repeatedly scheduling unsuccessful pickup attempts.
The dispute surfaced after an X user, Ajay (@AjayKumaarJi), claimed that he received an incorrect product through the platform and immediately reported the issue to customer support. According to the customer, the item arrived without a QR code or security label, which later became the central reason cited for the failed return process.
The incident has reignited discussions around consumer rights, return policies and accountability in India's rapidly growing quick-commerce sector.
Customer Alleges Zepto Scheduled Multiple Failed Pickups
In a post shared on X, the customer alleged that he informed Zepto about the issue as soon as the order was delivered and submitted photographs of the product as evidence.
According to the complaint, the company allegedly scheduled pickup attempts on three separate occasions. However, the customer claimed that delivery agents refused to collect the item each time because the product did not contain the QR code required for return verification.
The user further alleged that customer support eventually informed him that the return could not be processed because the QR code was missing.
"The item arrived without any QR or security code from the beginning. Zepto scheduled pickup three times, but agents refused collection because there was no QR code," the customer claimed in his post.
The customer has also stated that a complaint has been filed through the National Consumer Helpline and the Integrated Grievance Redressal Mechanism (INGRAM), along with supporting screenshots and documentation.
Zepto Responds to Viral Customer Complaint
Responding publicly to the allegations, Zepto's customer support handle acknowledged the complaint and requested additional details from the customer.
In its reply, the company stated:
"This isn't the experience we aim to deliver. Please share your order details and contact number via DM, and we'll look into it right away."
The response indicates that the company has initiated a review of the matter, though the outcome of the complaint remains unclear at the time of writing.
Consumer Rights Advocates Weigh In
The issue attracted attention from consumer rights observers and social media users, many of whom questioned whether customers should be held responsible for logistical or procedural shortcomings.
The Indian Business Betterment Foundation (IBBF) commented on the dispute, stating:
"A process should not hold customers responsible for an error they did not create. If the missing QR code existed at the time of delivery, the resolution process should account for that reality rather than rely solely on system requirements."
The statement has further fueled discussion about whether automated return systems should include exceptions when alleged delivery errors occur.
Social Media Debate Highlights E-Commerce Challenges
The complaint also prompted reactions from other users who shared their views on responsibility in online retail transactions.
One user argued that accountability should not be shifted to customers when operational issues arise during delivery or product verification.
"The fault lies with the seller. The customer should not bear the loss because of an issue that originated elsewhere," one user wrote.
While the allegations have gained significant traction online, the claims remain those of the customer and other social media users. Zepto has not publicly commented beyond its initial response seeking order details.
Growing Focus on Return Policies and Customer Trust
The viral dispute has once again highlighted broader concerns regarding return mechanisms, product verification systems and customer grievance redressal processes in India's expanding quick-commerce industry.
Consumer advocates have frequently emphasised that return and refund systems must be transparent, accessible and capable of handling exceptional cases where standard verification procedures may not apply.
As the complaint remains under review, many users are closely watching whether the customer ultimately receives a refund and how the company addresses the concerns raised.
