Ordered phone, received soap instead, customer wins Rs 20,574 against Flipkart

AI generated image used for representative purposeNEW DELHI: A Delhi district consumer commission has directed Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd to pay Rs 10,574 to a customer who ordered a mobile phone but received bars of soap instead. The commission also awarded Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental harassment and Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses. The order was passed on September 18, 2026.Why did the customer approach the commission?According to the commission order, the complainant ordered a Realme Narzo 50A mobile phone through the Flipkart app. The invoice dated October 24, 2021 showed the phone was sold for Rs 10,574 by Luminary Lifestyle Pvt Ltd and the order was placed through Flipkart.The customer received the delivery on October 25, 2021, but alleged that there were bars of Lifebuoy soap inside the package instead of the mobile phone. She complained to Flipkart and submitted documents, including her Aadhaar card. However, the issue was not resolved.The commission recorded that Flipkart told the customer on November 17, 2021 that the seller could not process the return request because no image had been shared. The customer then sent multiple emails saying that she had taken screenshots.The commission also viewed a video recorded by the complainant, which showed her opening the package and receiving bars of soap instead of the mobile phone.However, Flipkart alleged that it was only an online marketplace that facilitated transactions between buyers and sellers. It claimed protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provides exemptions to intermediaries from certain liabilities. It also said the actual seller was responsible for providing the refund.The platform also said the customer had been asked to provide identity proof and images of the product. The delivery company, meanwhile, said it had only delivered the sealed package supplied by the seller.Why did the commission hold Flipkart responsible?The bench of president Monika Aggarwal Srivastava and members Dr Rajender Dhar and Ritu Garodia noted that Flipkart had not disputed the delivery and pickup of the product or its communication with the customer. It said the platform had a responsibility to provide support to customers and help resolve their complaints.“OP-1 & 2 has not disputed the delivery and pick-up of the product in question. OP-1 & 2 has not disputed communication with the complainant. Irrespective of the terms and conditions of the vendor/seller, an Agreement between the OP-1 & 2 and seller casts an inherent responsibility on the part of OP-1 & 2, who being a facilitator, to provide all necessary support services expected by the customers. These services encompasses logistical assistance and payment facilitation to ensure customer satisfaction and effective resolution of the concerns raised by the complainant consumer and the user of e-commerce platform of OP-1 & 2. The consumer/user/complainant purchases through online portal trusting the services of OP-1 & 2 and the complainant customer has no direct interaction or privity of contract with the seller,” the commission said.In simple terms, the commission said that even if Flipkart acted as a platform connecting buyers and sellers, it could not completely distance itself from the customer's complaint when the transaction was made through its platform.The commission also referred to a national consumer commission decision. It noted that an online platform providing services to buyers and sellers could not claim that it was providing those services without consideration.The commission then recorded its finding that the customer had bought a mobile phone through Flipkart but received soap instead. It also noted that the platform had failed to make efforts to resolve the complaint despite repeated communication.“It is evident that the complainant purchased a mobile phone through OP-1 & OP-2 online platform. It was also seen that the complainant received soap in place of mobile phone. It is also evident that despite repeated communication, OP-1 & OP-2 failed to make any efforts towards redressal. OP-1 & 2 have independent tie-up with OP-3, seller, and OP-4, logistic provider. The complainant had no knowledge of OP-3 & 4 prior to the placement of order on OP-1 & 2 online platform,” it added.The commission held that Flipkart was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It directed the company to pay the price of the phone with interest, along with compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.“Hence, we find OP-1 & 2, Flipkart Internet Private Limited, guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and direct OP-1 & 2 to pay Rs. Rs.10,574/- with interest 7 percent per annum. We also award a compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expense,” the bench concluded.The commission's order meant Flipkart had to pay Rs 10,574 with 7 percent annual interest, along with Rs 10,000 towards compensation and litigation expenses. The total principal amount awarded was Rs 20,574.What did the consumer commission order?The district consumer commission directed Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd to:Pay Rs 10,574 to the customer with 7 percent annual interest.Pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental harassment.Pay Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.Comply with the order within 60 days.If the order is not complied with within 60 days, the amount will carry interest at 8 percent from the date of the order until realisation.