Didn’t Get Your Online Order? Consumer Courts Can Make Sites Pay Up

Amid India’s e-commerce boom, where shoppers are buying everything from gadgets to groceries online, consumer courts are stepping in to remind companies that convenience cannot come at the cost of accountability.

Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at South Delhi directed Flipkart to pay Rs 10,000 to a customer after cancelling more than 16 of his confirmed orders.

Commission President Monika A Srivastava and Member Kiran Kaushal, while hearing the complaint filed by Utkarsh Srivastava, a regular Flipkart customer, observed: “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 dispute began when Srivastava noticed that several of his confirmed orders placed during sales and at different times were repeatedly cancelled without any valid explanation. Aggrieved, he approached Flipkart’s customer service and official complaint channels. When his grievance went unanswered, he moved the South Delhi Consumer Forum, alleging unfair trade practices.

Ultimately, the forum held Flipkart responsible and rejected its argument that it was merely an “intermediary” under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act 2000, facilitating transactions between sellers and buyers.

"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,” the forum added.

This is not an isolated case. Across India, consumer forums are increasingly holding e-commerce giants accountable for negligence, unfair trade practices, and ineffective grievance redressal systems.

In Ghaziabad, the District Consumer Commission ruled in favour of a customer who had ordered Sony WH 1000XM5 headphones but received an inferior JBL model instead. Amazon admitted the delivery error but failed to replace the product or refund the money. The court directed Amazon to refund Rs 26,989 and retrieve the faulty item, along with Rs 5,000 in compensation.

In Bengaluru, the Urban Consumer Commission pulled up Myntra in two separate cases. Roopini Nagaraj, a Mercedes-Benz employee, lost nearly Rs 48,000 from her Rs 52,000 gift coupon due to unauthorised transactions after Myntra ignored her repeated complaints. The forum ordered Myntra to refund Rs 45,489, pay Rs 8,000 compensation, Rs 5,000 litigation costs, and contribute Rs 25,000 in punitive damages to the consumer welfare fund.

In another case, Komal Santoshkumar Jain paid Rs 63,768 for gold coins that never arrived. The forum directed Myntra to either deliver the coins or refund the amount with interest, plus Rs 20,000 in compensation, Rs 5,000 in legal costs, and Rs 20,000 in punitive damages.

In Mumbai, the District Commission came down heavily on Amazon after it failed to deliver a Rakhi worth just Rs 100. Investigations revealed that the courier company responsible had already shut down operations. Despite refunding the order amount, Amazon was held liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. It was ordered to pay Rs 30,000 in compensation and Rs 10,000 in legal costs, a total of Rs 40,000, with interest for delays.

These judgments delivered by consumer courts across India point to a disturbing pattern. E-commerce may have become a norm in Indian households, but mounting consumer frustration tells another story. Defective or fake products, arbitrary cancellations, complex returns, and unresponsive service are all too common.

What is worth noting is that these rulings are firmly anchored in the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which, for the first time, brought e-commerce platforms under the direct gaze of consumer law. The Act spells out clear duties for online marketplaces, ranging from timely grievance redressal and transparent returns to fair trade practices and accountability for third-party sellers.

By holding companies liable not just for their own lapses but also for the actions of the sellers they host, the law makes one thing clear: e-commerce convenience cannot come at the expense of consumer rights.