Consumer Commission Holds Myntra Liable For Wrong Product Delivery; Orders Refund And Compensation

Brief Facts of the Case:

The complainant, B. Krithika, ordered a BAESD Women Black Flared High-Rise Jeans from Myntra (Opposite Parties 1 and 2) on 22 December 2024 for ₹495. The product delivered on 28 December by Navya Hosiery was different — instead of the BAESD jeans, she received a SKIIE Street Jeans Wear item. Her refund/exchange request dated 4 January 2025 was rejected without any valid reason. Despite contacting Myntra's customer care and sending a legal notice on 17 February 2025, no corrective action was taken. She then filed a complaint seeking a refund of ₹495, compensation of ₹80,000 for mental agony, and ₹20,000 towards litigation expenses.

Contentions of the Opposite Parties:

Myntra contended that it acts merely as an online intermediary between buyers and third-party sellers and therefore cannot be held liable. It argued that the product was sold and dispatched by Navya Hosiery and that, under Section 79 of the IT Act and the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, liability rested with the seller. It further submitted that the complainant had failed to implead the seller, who was a necessary party to the dispute, and that Myntra never came into possession of either the ordered or the delivered product. Myntra also maintained that there was no privity of contract between it and the complainant, as all transactions were directly between the seller and the buyer.

Observations by the Commission:

The Commission observed that the complainant had placed the order directly through Myntra's platform, made the payment to Myntra, and received the product through its delivery system. Therefore, Myntra could not claim to be a mere intermediary and was held liable for ensuring proper delivery of the product.

The Commission further noted that Myntra failed to produce any proof showing that it had escalated the issue to the seller or verified the complaint, whereas the complainant had furnished sufficient evidence to prove that a wrong product was delivered and the refund was denied.

The Commission rejected Myntra's plea of non-joinder of the seller as a party and held that the contractual relationship existed between the complainant and Myntra, making Myntra responsible for the transaction and delivery.

The Commission held Myntra liable for deficiency in service for delivering a wrong product and denying refund or replacement, and directed Myntra to:

• Refund ₹474 (cost of the product) within six weeks,
• Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony, and
• Pay ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.

The complaint was partly allowed against Myntra in accordance with these directions.

Case Title: B. Krithika v. Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: CC. No.65/2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order