Read the order here.

Flipkart has been held liable for “deficiency in service and unfair trade practice” by the Delhi District Consumer Commission after a buyer received bars of Lifebuoy soap instead of the Realme smartphone they had ordered on the app. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South II, rejected Flipkart’s argument that it was an intermediary protected by the safe harbour provision under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Flipkart faced a similar rejection of its safe harbour defence this year when the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) fined the company Rs 5 lakh for the sale of toys that did not have Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification.

What happened?

  • The buyer ordered a Realme Narzo 50A (Oxygen Blue, 128 GB) on the Flipkart app. An invoice dated October 24, 2021, shows that Luminary Lifestyle Pvt Ltd. sold the phone for Rs 10,574.
  • The order arrived on October 25, 2021, but the package contained bars of soap instead of the phone.
  • The buyer contacted Flipkart and shared their Aadhaar card. However, on November 17, 2021, Flipkart responded that it could not process the return because the buyer had not shared an image.
  • The buyer sent further emails and filed a police complaint, but neither resolved the issue. The buyer then approached the commission in 2022, seeking Rs 20,000 for financial loss and Rs 50,000 for “mental agony and harassment”.

Flipkart’s argument and the commission’s response: Flipkart argued that it provides “an online marketplace platform to facilitate the transactions between buyers and sellers”, falls “within the definition of intermediary” and is protected by Section 79. It also argued that “the refund shall only be provided by” the seller.

The company further claimed that it had asked the buyer to submit images of the product and proof of identity because the buyer’s history showed “a large number of return requests”.

The logistics company responsible for the delivery said it “only delivered the product in a sealed box as provided by the seller”. The commission did not consider the seller’s reply because it was filed late.

In its order, the commission held:

“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.”

The commission said these services include “logistical assistance and payment facilitation to ensure customer satisfaction and effective resolution of the concerns raised” by buyers. It added that buyers “purchase through online portal trusting the services” of OP-1 and OP-2 and have “no direct interaction” or privity of contract with the seller. This means that buyers and sellers do not have a direct contractual relationship.

In its order dated July 31, 2026, the commission noted that the buyer had submitted a video that “reveals that complainant had opened the package and had received bars of soap”.

The commission relied on the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) 2013 decision in Rediff.com India Limited v. Urmil Munjal. The decision held that a portal that brings buyers and sellers together “cannot be permitted to claim that it is providing purely gratuitous service to its customers, without any consideration”.

What must Flipkart pay?

The commission directed Flipkart to pay:

  • A refund of Rs 10,574, with interest at 7% per annum.
  • Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental harassment.
  • Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.

Flipkart has 60 days to comply with the order. If it fails to do so, interest at 8% per annum will apply from the date of the order.

The order is against Flipkart and does not impose any liability on the seller or the logistics company.

What does the order leave out?

The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, require e-commerce entities to establish a grievance redressal mechanism. However, the commission relied on the general law on deficiency in service to rule against Flipkart.

The order does not examine the specific obligations under the e-commerce rules. This raises questions about how effectively the existing grievance redressal framework addresses disputes such as this one, which took nearly five years to resolve despite involving a relatively small amount of money.

Where does Flipkart’s safe harbour fight stand

Flipkart’s challenge to the CCPA’s penalty for selling toys without BIS certification is pending before the Karnataka High Court.

LiveLaw reported that the CCPA argued Flipkart had lost its safe harbour protection because it did not remove the listings even after receiving actual knowledge of them.

Also read:

The post Soap in a phone box: Flipkart can’t evade responsibility as intermediary, says consumer commission appeared first on MEDIANAMA.