The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South II, Delhi, comprising President Monika Aggarwal Srivastava and Members Dr. Rajender Dhar and Ritu Garodia, has held Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after a consumer received bars of Lifebuoy soap instead of a Realme mobile phone ordered through its online platform.

Facts:

The complainant, Mausam Meena, ordered a Realme Narzo 50A smartphone (Oxygen Blue, 128 GB) through Flipkart's online platform for ₹10,574. According to the invoice dated October 24, 2021, the phone was sold by Luminary Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. When the complainant received the package on October 25, 2021, she allegedly found bars of Lifebuoy soap instead of the mobile phone.

Following the delivery, the complainant approached Flipkart and submitted a complaint along with supporting documents, including her Aadhaar card. In an email dated November 17, 2021, Flipkart informed her that the seller could not process the return request as no images of the product had been shared. The complainant subsequently sent multiple emails, stating that she had taken screenshots and had evidence to support her claim. She also filed a police complaint.

Aggrieved by the lack of redressal, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South II, Delhi, seeking compensation of ₹20,000 for financial loss and ₹50,000 for mental agony and harassment.

Contentions of the Opposite Parties:

Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., arrayed as Opposite Parties 1 and 2, contended that it merely operated an online marketplace facilitating transactions between buyers and sellers and was protected under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

It further argued that the seller, Luminary Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party 3), was responsible for the product and any refund. Flipkart also claimed that the complainant had been asked to provide identification and product images but had failed to do so, and pointed to her purchase history, which allegedly reflected numerous return requests.

Instakart, the logistics service provider arrayed as Opposite Party 4, submitted that it had merely delivered the product in a sealed package supplied by the seller.

Observations and decision:

The Commission examined the pleadings, documentary evidence, email correspondence, invoice and video recording. It noted that a video shown by the complainant, as recorded in its order dated July 31, 2026, revealed that she had received bars of soap instead of the mobile phone.

The Commission relied on the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision in Rediff.com India Limited v. Ms. Urmil Munjal, 2013 (3) CLT 79 (NC), to reject Flipkart's contention that it merely operated as an intermediary between buyers and sellers. The Commission observed that an e-commerce platform facilitating transactions cannot claim to provide services without consideration and must fulfil its responsibility to provide necessary customer support and grievance redressal.

The Commission held Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and directed it to refund ₹10,574 with interest at 7% per annum. It also awarded ₹5,000 as compensation for mental harassment and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.

The Commission further directed Flipkart to comply with the order within 60 days, failing which the order would carry interest at 8% per annum from the date of the order until realization.