Delhi Consumer Court Orders Flipkart to Pay Rs 10K for Cancelling Confirmed Orders Without Reason
Utkarsh Srivastava, a regular Flipkart customer, filed a plea before the South Delhi Consumer Forum after several of his orders were cancelled one after another;
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Delhi, has directed Flipkart to pay Rs10,000 to a customer after cancelling more than 16 of their confirmed orders.
Commission President Monika A. Srivastava and Member Kiran Kaushal were hearing a complaint filed by Utkarsh Srivastava, a regular Flipkart customer, seeking compensation for mental agony, harassment, deficiency in services and unfair trade practices.
In its order, the forum stated, "This Commission therefore directs the OP to pay a sum of ₹10,000 as compensation for the harassment caused to the complainant within three months from the date of pronouncement of this order, failing which the OP would be liable to pay interest at 6 percent per annum on the said amount. The complainant is not entitled to any other relief.”
The dispute arose after Srivastava noticed that multiple confirmed orders placed during different sales and at various times were repeatedly cancelled without any valid reason. The products included tech gadgets and personal items. According to the complaint, Flipkart’s customer care representatives refused to disclose their full names or provide the contact details of the grievance officer.
Aggrieved, Srivastava attempted to resolve the matter through Flipkart’s customer service and official complaint channels. Upon failing to receive any response, he filed a complaint before the South Delhi Consumer Forum, alleging unfair trade practices and deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act. To support his case, Srivastava submitted documents such as order confirmations, cancellation emails, screenshots and records of complaints lodged with Flipkart.
On the other hand, Flipkart argued that it functions as an e-commerce platform acting solely as an "intermediary" under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act 2000, facilitating transactions between independent third-party sellers and customers. It contended that it was not the seller and therefore bore no responsibility for the cancellations.
The Commission observed that several of Srivastava’s orders, including those for shoes and a laptop, had been cancelled unilaterally without providing cogent reasons. It also noted that the complainant was denied a physical inspection of the laptop despite it being an open box delivery and that the order was subsequently cancelled.
Rejecting Flipkart’s defence, the Commission said, "Flipkart cannot wash its hands of responsibility merely by stating that it is an intermediary and has no role to play in the buying and selling of products.”
The Commission further added, "The OP does not deny that payments were made to it and that the orders were placed on its website. Users transact through the OP’s marketplace, and the OP plays an active role in facilitating sales and purchases. The OP also charges fees from sellers, and therefore it is highly unreasonable for the OP to shirk liability by calling itself an intermediary.”
Case Title: Utkarsh Srivastava vs Flipkart Internet Private Limited
Order Date: 10th July 2025
Coram: Monika A. Srivastava (President) & Kiran Kaushal (Member)