Delhi Consumer Court Orders Flipkart to Pay Rs 10K for Cancelling Confirmed Orders Without Reason
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Delhi, has directed Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. to pay ₹10,000 as compensation to a consumer after repeatedly cancelling more than 16 confirmed orders without providing valid reasons. The bench comprising Commission President Monika A. Srivastava and Member Kiran Kaushal was hearing a complaint filed by Utkarsh Srivastava, a resident of Gulmohar Park, New Delhi, seeking ₹2.5 lakh in compensation for mental agony, harassment, deficiency in services, unfair trade practices, and ₹40,000 towards litigation costs.
The dispute began when Srivastava placed an order for Skechers “Go Walk” walking shoes in November 2023 through Flipkart’s website. The seller, Slope E-Commerce, accepted the order, which was initially scheduled for delivery on November 27. The delivery date was later rescheduled, but on November 27, the order was abruptly cancelled without any reason. When Srivastava contacted Flipkart’s customer care, a representative admitted that the order had been unilaterally cancelled despite the item being shown as “in stock” at the time of purchase and the order having been processed by the seller.
Srivastava alleged that customer care representatives refused to disclose their full names or provide contact details of the grievance officer, whose listed number was unreachable despite repeated attempts. In an email to Flipkart, he intimated his intent to initiate legal action. Following this, a grievance team member called, apologised, and offered ₹300 as token compensation, which he declined, citing higher compensation awarded in similar cases by other consumer forums.
The complaint also detailed a series of further cancellations, including a December 2023 order for 12 paint bottles, of which the system permitted only five, and a January 2024 order for a “VAS collection” item from seller Dealopedia, which was cancelled after being marked “out for delivery.” The consumer alleged inconsistency, pointing out that his brother, residing at the same address, successfully received the same item from the same seller during the same period.
Another major grievance related to a Zebronics Pro Series Z laptop ordered in February 2024 with “open box delivery” — a feature allowing the buyer to inspect the product at delivery. On March 2, when the delivery agent arrived, Srivastava requested to switch on the laptop to verify its condition. The agent refused, claiming the policy only permitted physical inspection. While Srivastava was on a call with customer care to confirm this, the agent cancelled the order. Although a fresh order was placed, it was again refused open box delivery despite earlier assurances, and was eventually cancelled.
Flipkart, in its reply, contended that it was merely an “intermediary” as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, facilitating transactions between independent sellers and buyers. It argued that the complainant’s grievance should have been directed against the sellers, who were not made parties to the case, and maintained that it bore no contractual obligation towards the complainant. It further claimed that in many instances the orders were “cash on delivery” and therefore no monetary loss was suffered, and that a ₹300 goodwill offer had been refused. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents, including a Supreme Court ruling in Sanchayani Savings & Investment and a 2022 judgment in Moreshar Yadaorao Gaikwad v. Mahesh Sitaram Bhedi.
In his rejoinder, Srivastava asserted that he had not transacted directly with the sellers and had used Flipkart’s platform, making him a consumer of Flipkart. He stressed that all payments were to be made through Flipkart, which played an active role in the sales process.
After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the Commission noted that Flipkart did not dispute that multiple confirmed orders were cancelled unilaterally and without cogent reasons, and that the complainant was denied the promised open box inspection of the laptop. It 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 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.”
Holding that Flipkart’s conduct amounted to deficiency in service and caused harassment to the consumer, the Commission directed it to pay ₹10,000 as compensation within three months from the date of the order, failing which the amount would attract interest at 6% per annum. It also recorded that Srivastava was not entitled to any other relief.
Appearance
Present: Complainant in person
None for OP
Cause Title: Utkarsh Srivastava V. Flipkart Internet Private Limited
Case No: Case No.49/2024
Coram: Monika A. Srivastava [President], Kiran Kaushal [Member]
