Back
Consumer Commission holds Myntra liable for failing to deliver 5-gram gold coin
Kurnool, July 22 : The , has delivered a significant ruling for e-commerce accountability, holding liable for and over its failure to deliver a 5-gram gold coin ordered through its platform. The bench, comprising President Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar, Members Sri N. Narayana Reddy and Smt S. Nazima Kausar, directed the online marketplace to pay ₹50,000 in compensation to the complainant, along with ₹10,000 towards .
When a "non-cancellable" order vanished into thin air
G. N. Srinivas Chakri, a resident of Padmavathi Nagar, Nandyal, placed an online order on Myntra's platform on , for a 24K (999) Purity Ayodhya Gold Coin (5 grams). He paid the full of ₹59,750 through UPI, along with a ₹20 platform fee, and received an order confirmation promising delivery by .
The promised delivery date came and went, but the gold coin never arrived. Over the following weeks, Chakri made repeated follow-ups through emails, WhatsApp, phone calls, and social media, requesting the platform to trace the consignment and ensure delivery. The order status page disclosed that the shipment was delayed due to
"high demand in your city"
— an explanation that offered little comfort.
Rather than resolving the delivery issue, Myntra unilaterally cancelled the order on — 23 days after the promised delivery date — and refunded ₹59,730 to the complainant's account. This came after 41 days of retaining the complainant's money. Chakri, who had consistently insisted on delivery of the gold coin rather than a refund, was left with neither the product nor compensation for the delay.
Myntra's defence: "We're just a marketplace"
Myntra's written version contended that the gold coin was to be supplied by an independent third-party seller who was not impleaded as a party to the complaint. Relying on its Terms of Use, the platform argued that all commercial terms relating to the sale — including dispatch, delivery, and other obligations — were governed by the between the buyer and the seller.
Myntra maintained that its role was confined to providing an online marketplace to facilitate transactions, and that its payment facility was merely intended to complete the transaction. The platform denied any on its part, asserting that it had extended all possible assistance by escalating the grievance to the concerned authorities.
"Era of e-commerce" demands accountability
The Commission, however, rejected Myntra's defence outright. It noted that the order was placed on the platform, the payment was collected by the platform, and the delivery commitment was made in the platform's name. The fact that Myntra also collected a platform fee of ₹20 from the complainant strengthened its responsibility.
"Having undertaken to facilitate the sale and accepted the
, the Opposite Party cannot completely absolve itself of responsibility by shifting the entire blame onto the third-party seller,"
the Commission observed.
"It owes a corresponding duty to ensure that consumers receive the products within the promised time or are otherwise suitably compensated for any failure in the transaction."
The Commission further held:
"In the era of e-commerce, online platforms facilitating transactions, collecting payments, and assuring delivery cannot escape liability merely by describing themselves as intermediaries, especially when
flows through them and assurances are made in their name."
Financial loss quantified through IBJA data
The judgment also addressed the financial dimension of the delay. Between the date of purchase () and the date of refund (), gold prices had risen substantially. Citing price data published by the , the Commission found that the complainant suffered a financial loss of ₹4,297 during this period — a figure that directly informed the compensation awarded.
The Commission held that the
in delivering a high-value commodity like a gold coin,
"particularly during a period when gold prices were witnessing a substantial upward trend, followed by the unilateral refund of the purchase price instead of effecting delivery,"
caused financial loss, inconvenience, and
to the complainant.
The verdict
Partly allowing the complaint, the Commission directed Myntra to pay ₹50,000 as consolidated compensation towards financial loss, , and inconvenience, along with ₹10,000 in . If the amount is not paid within 45 days, it will attract interest at 9% per annum from — the date of filing the complaint — until realization.
The ruling sends a clear message to e-commerce platforms: merely describing themselves as intermediaries will no longer shield them from consumer protection law when they collect payments and make delivery assurances in their own name.
