Rs 10,574 back with 7 percent interest, and Rs 10,000 more as compensation and costs: a Delhi consumer commission has held Flipkart answerable for a parcel that held soap and not a Realme phone, and has refused to accept that a marketplace is only an intermediary.
New Delhi: A buyer who alleges that her Realme Narzo 50A order reached her as bars of Lifebuoy soap has won a refund, with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South II, Delhi, holding Flipkart liable for delivering soap instead of a Realme phone, and for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It directed Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. to refund Rs 10,574 with 7 percent annual interest and to pay Rs 5,000 each as compensation for mental harassment and litigation costs [Mausam Meena v. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. and Others].
The order in Consumer Complaint No. DC/AB1/670/CC/142/2022 is dated September 18, 2026. It was authored by Member Ritu Garodia, with President Monika Aggarwal Srivastava and Member Dr. Rajender Dhar on the Commission. Nobody appeared for either side on the date of the order.
Where the intermediary plea fell short
Flipkart’s plea that it merely runs a marketplace and cannot be made to pay did not find favour. The Commission noted that the company did not dispute the delivery and pick-up of the product or its communication with the complainant, and held that its position as a facilitator carried responsibilities towards the customer, whatever the seller’s terms:
“Irrespective of the terms and conditions of the vendor/seller, an Agreement between the OP-1 & 2 and seller casts an inherent responsibility on the part of OP-1 & 2 , who being a facilitator, to provide all necessary support services expected by the customers.”
Two further points weighed with the Commission. The complainant had bought through Flipkart’s platform, trusting its services, and had no direct dealing with the seller; and Flipkart had independent tie-ups with both the seller and the logistics provider. It also relied on the National Commission’s ruling in Rediff.com India Ltd. v. Ms. Urmil Munjal (2013) 3 CLT 79 (NC), which rejected the argument that an internet portal providing paid services to buyers and sellers is not answerable to a consumer.
A phone ordered, a soap delivered
The invoice dated October 24, 2021 shows a Realme Narzo 50A (Oxygen Blue, 128 GB) sold for Rs 10,574 by Luminary Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. through the Flipkart platform. The complainant alleged that the package delivered on October 25, 2021 held a Lifebuoy soap in place of the phone. She wrote to Flipkart with her documents but, she said, no action was taken. She asked for Rs 20,000 for financial loss and Rs 50,000 for mental agony and harassment.
The record shows that on November 17, 2021, Flipkart told her that the seller could not process her return request because no image had been shared. She replied that she had taken screenshots. She also filed a police complaint, which was exhibited before the Commission, and showed it a video of the parcel being opened; the Commission recorded that the video showed the complainant had opened the package and received bars of soap.
The opposite parties’ answers
Flipkart (opposite parties 1 and 2) said it only provides an online marketplace to facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers, that it is an intermediary protected by Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and that the actual seller, Luminary Lifestyle, alone is bound to refund. It also contended that the complainant had been asked for ID proof and images of the product but did not supply them, and alleged that her purchase history shows a large number of return requests.
It questioned whether the complaint was maintainable, saying it is neither a trader nor a service provider under the Consumer Protection Act. The seller’s reply was not taken on record as it was filed late. Instakart, the logistics provider, said it delivered a sealed box as handed over by the seller.
What Flipkart must pay, and by when
Having found that the complainant bought a phone through the platform, received soap and got no redressal despite repeated communication, the Commission ordered Flipkart to refund Rs 10,574 with interest at 7 percent per annum, and to pay Rs 5,000 for mental harassment and Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses. Compliance is due within 60 days; failing that, the amount will carry interest at 8 percent from the date of the order until realisation. The directions run against Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. alone.
What the order signals
Consumer commissions are regularly asked to treat online platforms as mere intermediaries. This order again declines to let a marketplace pass the responsibility to its seller when a buyer’s complaint goes unanswered, and ties the platform’s duty to the support services a customer expects when ordering through its app.
The findings are those of a district commission on the pleadings, exhibits and video before it. Flipkart’s allegation about the complainant’s return history was not accepted as a ground to deny relief, and the platform remains free to pursue the available remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Case Title: Mausam Meena v. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. and Others [Consumer Complaint No. DC/AB1/670/CC/142/2022]
Bench: Monika Aggarwal Srivastava, President, Dr. Rajender Dhar and Ritu Garodia, Members, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South II, Delhi
Date of Order: September 18, 2026
Appearances: None appeared for the complainant or the opposite parties on the date of the order