Myntra Held Liable For Wrong Product Delivery; Consumer Commission Orders Refund And Compensation
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvallur, comprising Dr. S.M. Latha Maheswari (President) and P. Vinodh Kumar (Member-I), has held Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service after the e-commerce platform delivered a wrong product to a customer and subsequently refused refund or replacement.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The complainant, B. Krithika, had ordered a BAESD Women Black Flared High-Rise Jeans from Myntra (Opposite Parties 1 and 2) on December 22, 2024, for ₹495. However, upon delivery on December 28, 2024, she received a SKIIE Street Jeans Wear item instead of the ordered product. When the complainant raised a return/refund request on January 4, 2025, Myntra rejected it without providing any valid justification. Despite repeated communications with Myntra’s customer care and the issuance of a legal notice dated February 17, 2025, no action was taken to address the grievance. Consequently, the complainant approached the Commission seeking a refund of ₹495, compensation of ₹80,000 for mental agony, and ₹20,000 towards litigation expenses.
Contentions of the Opposite Parties:
Myntra, in its defence, submitted that it operates merely as an online intermediary platform connecting third-party sellers and buyers, and therefore cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service. The company contended that the product was dispatched by the seller, Navya Hosiery, and as per Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, liability, if any, rested solely with the seller. It was further argued that the complainant had failed to implead the seller as a necessary party, thereby rendering the complaint defective for non-joinder of a necessary party. Myntra also claimed that there existed no privity of contract between itself and the complainant, asserting that it neither possessed nor handled the product in question.
Findings and Observations of the Commission:
Rejecting Myntra’s defence, the Commission observed that the order was placed directly through Myntra’s online platform, payment was made to Myntra, and the product was delivered through its own logistics chain. Therefore, the company could not distance itself from liability by claiming to be a mere intermediary. The Commission held that once a transaction is executed on Myntra’s platform, the company assumes responsibility to ensure proper delivery of the ordered item and must redress any issue arising from defective or wrong deliveries. It further observed that Myntra failed to produce any evidence showing that it escalated the issue to the seller or took steps to verify the complaint.
The order stated that the complainant had produced sufficient proof—including invoices, product details, and correspondence—to establish that the product delivered differed from what was ordered, and that Myntra’s denial of refund constituted deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Commission also rejected Myntra’s plea of non-joinder of the seller, holding that since the complainant’s contract was primarily with Myntra, the e-commerce platform bore the direct obligation to ensure fulfillment of the sale transaction.
Decision and Directions:
Finding Myntra guilty of deficiency in service, the Commission directed the company to:
Refund ₹474, being the cost of the wrong product delivered, within six weeks.
Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant.
Pay ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.
Accordingly, the complaint was partly allowed against Myntra, reinforcing that online platforms engaging in end-to-end transactions cannot evade liability by citing intermediary status when consumers suffer due to defective delivery or failure of service.
Cause Title: B. Krithika v. Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No: CC. No.65/2025
Coram: Dr. S.M. Latha Maheswari (President), P. Vinodh Kumar (Member-I)
