Does it work? / Deep dive

The laptop chargeback

A laptop costing about ₹81,000 arrived dead. The seller and the manufacturer would not refund it. I asked my card issuer to dispute the charge. This is how that went, and why the Ombudsman complaint failed.

What happened, in order

1. 6 to 14 July: purchase, delivery, defect recorded

   Paid by credit card on an e-commerce marketplace. The laptop did not power on. The manufacturer's authorised service centre recorded the defect three days after delivery.

2. July: the seller and manufacturer refuse

   Weeks of chat, email and a national consumer helpline complaint. In August the manufacturer approved a refund in writing and withdrew it five days later.

3. 29 to 31 July: the bank registers the dispute

   Its first answer was to take it up with the merchant. It then registered a dispute for defective goods, gave a temporary credit, and confirmed in writing that no charges would apply whatever the outcome.

4. August: chargeback raised and declined

   By the bank's account it raised the chargeback on 4 August and the merchant's bank declined it on 19 August. I learned of the decline by SMS at the end of September.

5. 30 September to 3 October: four requests, two template replies

   I asked for the reason code the dispute was raised under, a copy of the merchant's response, escalation to pre-arbitration with my rebuttal, and confirmation of no charges. Both replies talked about OTP, CVV and reporting to cybercrime, which apply to unauthorised transactions. Mine was authorised; the goods were defective. The temporary credit was reversed and I paid under protest.

6. 5 October: Ombudsman complaint

   The same four requests, plus ₹25,000 for the handling. The refund itself was framed as conditional: only if the bank had mishandled the dispute.

7. 18 and 26 October: my replies

   The bank's submission gave the date of my dispute as 29 June, a week before the purchase. I pointed that out, along with the wrong-category replies and the fact that the merchant's documents showed delivery, which nobody disputed.

8. 27 October: closed

   One day after my second reply. The letter restates the bank's chronology, 29 June included, says my reply was "examined and duly considered", and finds no deficiency. The reason code, the merchant's response, pre-arbitration and the template replies are not mentioned.

Why it failed

• The Ombudsman decides what the bank did, not what the seller did. A bank that raised a chargeback and received a decline has, on the surface, done its job. I knew this going in and built the complaint on process failures, not on the laptop.
• Process failures need the Ombudsman to ask the bank questions. Whether the dispute was raised under the right reason code, and whether pre-arbitration was considered, are things only the bank knows. In other cases the office did put its own questions to the bank. Here it did not.
• Card network rules favour a merchant who can show a remedy was offered. The manufacturer had offered a repair and, briefly, a refund. That it withdrew the refund did not reach whoever decided the dispute.

What I would do differently

• Raise the card dispute in the first week, in writing, using the words "goods not as described" or "defective goods", and ask for the dispute reference and reason code then.
• Ask for the merchant's response the day the decline arrives. Pre-arbitration has short network deadlines.
• Keep the two tracks separate. The claim against the seller belongs in the consumer commission, which can order a refund and can weigh evidence. The Ombudsman complaint against the bank is worth filing only for a clear handling failure, and is a long shot.
• Do not count on the wrong date mattering. An error in the bank's submission that anyone could check against the invoice was repeated in the closure.

The laptop was repaired by the manufacturer in October, three months after delivery. I did not get the refund or the compensation.

This page gives my account. The bank's position, as recorded in the closure letter, is that it raised the chargeback within network timelines, the merchant declined it, and I should pursue the merchant.