Enquire privately
Shift 5 of 8

A complaint is not a finding.

FromAllegationToFair process

When a disagreement can’t be settled early, a fair process should step in without taking ownership of the network, and without punishing anyone before the facts are clear. It works from a record both sides can see, and reputation waits for a verified outcome.

Level 1 Concept4 min read

A part arrives with one faulty component

Kavita’s part arrives, and one component is faulty. She asks for a full refund. Imran says it left his workshop exactly as specified.

The resolution process opens with the transaction record already assembled. It shows that delivery was confirmed, and an inspection note that one component was faulty. Kavita has documented a small repair cost. Imran has a replacement in stock.

Both are offered a settlement: a partial refund, a replacement and a revised delivery date. Both accept. Nobody’s reputation has changed. The money was protected throughout, and the relationship survived.

Three things that must never collapse into one

A complaint is not a dispute. A complaint is an allegation. A dispute is not a finding of fault. A dispute is an unresolved disagreement. Fault is not a permanent reputation. A verified failure has to be understood in context.

Without that separation, every allegation becomes an economic punishment. With it, the system is fair to everyone, and people trust it enough to use it.

  1. Complaint
  2. dispute
  3. evidence
  4. resolution
  5. verified outcome
  6. reputation updated, only if warranted

From raising it to reviewing it

  1. Initiate. A participant raises a dispute: what is disputed, which commitment is in question and the remedy sought. Raising a dispute never establishes fault.
  2. Assemble. The evidence is already in the transaction record, and both sides can see what is being considered.
  3. Respond, in a structured way. Not “tell us your side,” but: which facts do you accept, which do you contest, what supports your position and what would you propose?
  4. Negotiate. Many disputes can be settled without anyone deciding who is right.
  5. Mediate. A neutral mediator helps the parties agree, especially where the relationship is worth keeping.
  6. Decide. If agreement isn’t possible, and where both parties have agreed to it, a formal decision is made on the transaction record, not on whoever tells the better story.
  7. Execute. The outcome triggers action where possible: releasing or refunding protected money, arranging fulfilment and recording the result.
  8. Review. There is a path to appeal, with clear rules.

Go deeper

What India has already built

ONDC’s grievance framework lets an unresolved complaint go from the buyer app to ONDC, which lists empanelled online dispute-resolution providers for conciliation, mediation and arbitration[1][2]. Its blog says a manual process is available now and that an automated one is being integrated[1]. The 2022 consultation paper had sketched three tiers: the participant resolves it first, grievance officers across participants come next, and dispute-resolution providers after that[3].

On the payments side, a UPI complaint moves from the app to the payment service provider’s bank, the customer’s bank and NPCI, and then to the Ombudsman[4]. E-commerce rules require acknowledgement within 48 hours and redress within a month[5].

This shift builds on those foundations. What it adds is a connection: the resolution process starts from a shared record, is linked to protected money, and feeds a fair reputation.

Software as a trust assistant

Software can assemble the evidence, explain the disagreement, highlight what is contested and suggest possible settlements.

It helps the network understand what happened. People and fair process decide what should happen.
Settlements that carry themselves out

When money is protected (Shift 2), an agreed settlement can be carried out by the payment provider, which refunds one part and releases the other. Agreement and action become one step, which makes mediation more dependable.

Where no money is held, a mediated settlement depends on good faith or the courts. India’s Mediation Act, 2023 recognises online mediation and provides that a mediated settlement agreement is enforceable as a court decree[6]. When we checked, only some of its provisions had been brought into force by notification (October 2023), so the current position needs confirming before a pilot relies on it.

Getting it right

Consumer rights preserved. Online resolution is an option, never a replacement for anyone’s right to go to a consumer commission or a court. The Consumer Protection Act applies in addition to other law, and a complaint can be filed within two years[7].

Binding decisions need consent. Arbitration applies only where both parties have agreed to it, and an arbitration agreement must be in writing[8].

Neutral providers. Resolution providers are independent of the parties.

Accessible to everyone. Simple, affordable, in local languages and on any phone.

What could go wrong

  • A verdict factory.Pressure to close cases quickly can push people into settlements they don’t understand.
  • Independence.A provider’s income can depend on who refers cases, so independence has to be designed in.
  • Access.If a small seller or a first-time buyer can’t follow the process, fairness on paper isn’t fairness.
  • A thin record.A decision made on the record can still be wrong if the record is thin.

How we’d test it

One category, working with existing dispute-resolution providers. Start with negotiation and mediation.

The test
Resolution from the record
What we would measure
Time to resolution, settlement rate, cost per case, and fairness as rated by both sides, against the current process.
What would end the idea
No faster or cheaper than today’s process, or either side says it favoured the other.
In short

Resolution from the record is no faster or fairer, as rated by both sides, than today’s process.

Sources

  1. [1]ONDC, Enabling fair commerce: ONDC’s Issue and Grievance Management goes liveChecked
  2. [2]ONDC, ComplaintsChecked
  3. [3]ONDC, Building Trust in the ONDC Network: Consultation Paper (29 September 2022), section 4.6Checked; proposals for comment, not adopted policy
  4. [4]NPCI, UPI dispute redressal mechanismChecked
  5. [5]Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 notified (2020)Checked via a legal summary; the Rules’ own text not read
  6. [6]Wolters Kluwer, The Mediation Act 2023: India paves the way for a new mediation law (Part 1); AZB & Partners, Mediation Act notified (19 October 2023)Checked; whether sections 27 and 30 are now in force is not confirmed
  7. [7]Consumer Protection Act, 2019: section 100 and section 69Checked
  8. [8]Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, section 7, as quoted in Babaji Automotive v. Indian Oil Corporation (Calcutta High Court, 2005)Checked; later amendments to section 7(4) not reviewed

Spotted a source we missed or a rule we misread? Tell us what we got wrong.

A fair outcome settles one case. The next question is what it can teach about why things go wrong.