Gold Coin Not Delivered, Order Cancelled After 23 Days: Kurnool Consumer Commission Holds Myntra Liable

Facts

The complainant, G. N. Srinivas Chakri, placed an online order on Myntra's platform on October 5, 2025 for a 5-gram Kalyan Jewellers 24K (999) Purity Ayodhya Gold Coin for ₹59,750. The amount was paid through UPI, and the order confirmation indicated October 22, 2025 as the expected delivery date. The complainant also paid a ₹20 platform fee to Myntra.

The gold coin was not delivered within the assured time. The complainant repeatedly contacted Myntra through emails, WhatsApp and its support channels, seeking delivery of the product. The records showed that he continued to insist on delivery of the gold coin.

On November 15, 2025, Myntra cancelled the order and processed a refund of ₹59,730, which was credited to the complainant's account on the same day. The complainant thereafter approached the Consumer Commission seeking compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss allegedly caused by the delayed delivery and refund.

Contentions

Myntra contended that the complaint was not maintainable against it as the gold coin was to be supplied by an independent third-party seller. It argued that it merely operated an online marketplace and, under its Terms of Use, could not be held liable for non-delivery or other issues concerning products sold by third-party sellers.Myntra further submitted that it had assisted the complainant by coordinating with the seller and escalating the grievance to the concerned authorities.

Commission's Observations

Rejecting Myntra's defence that it was merely an intermediary, the Commission observed that the platform was where the order was placed, payment was collected and delivery commitments were made. Myntra had also collected a platform fee for facilitating the transaction.

The Commission held that having undertaken to facilitate the sale and accepted the consideration, Myntra could not completely absolve itself of responsibility by shifting the entire blame onto the third-party seller. It owed a corresponding duty to ensure delivery within the promised time or suitably compensate the consumer for its failure.

The Commission noted that the promised delivery date was October 22, 2025, but Myntra cancelled the order and refunded the amount only on November 15, 2025. During this period, gold prices had increased considerably, depriving the complainant of the opportunity to purchase the same gold coin at the agreed price. The Commission held that the unilateral refund, instead of delivery, amounted to deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice.

The Commission also relied on price data published by the Indian Bullion and Jewellers Association (IBJA), which showed that the increase in gold prices between the date of purchase and the date of refund caused the complainant a financial loss of ₹4,297.

"In the era of e-commerce, online platforms facilitating transactions, collecting payments, and assuring delivery cannot escape liability merely by describing themselves as intermediaries," the Commission observed.

Decision

Holding Myntra deficient in service for the delayed delivery and unilateral cancellation and refund despite the complainant's insistence on delivery, the Commission partly allowed the complaint.

It directed Myntra to pay ₹50,000 as consolidated compensation towards the financial loss, mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant, along with ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.

The Commission further directed that if the ₹50,000 compensation was not paid within 45 days, it would carry 9% per annum interest from January 27, 2026, the date of filing of the complaint, until realization.

Case Details

Case Title: G. N. Srinivas Chakri v. Myntra Designs Private Limited
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 29/2026

For the Complainant: Sri K. Krishna Chaitanya, Advocate
For Myntra: Sri A. Jagadeesh Kumar, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order