Myntra Held Liable for Wrong Product Delivery, Ordered to Pay Compensation

CHENNAI: A Consumer Commission has ruled that e-commerce giant Myntra Designs Private Limited is liable for delivering a wrong product sold by a third-party vendor on its platform. The Commission rejected Myntra's argument that it was merely an intermediary, holding it responsible for the "deficiency in service" and ordering it to refund the customer and pay compensation for the mental agony caused.

The bench, presided over by TMT. Dr. S.M. Latha Maheswari, directed Myntra to refund the product cost of ₹474, pay ₹10,000 in compensation, and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.

Background of the Case

The complaint was filed by B. Krithika, who purchased a pair of "BAESD Women Black Flared High-Rise Jeans" for ₹495 from Myntra on December 22, 2024. However, on December 28, she received an entirely different product, "SKIIE STREET Jeans Wear," supplied by a seller named Navya Hosiery.

Krithika immediately attempted to initiate a return or exchange through Myntra's help center. Despite a four-day effort and a subsequent hour-long call with customer service, her request was denied without a valid reason. After a legal notice sent on February 17, 2025, went unanswered, she approached the Consumer Commission seeking a refund, along with ₹80,000 in compensation for mental hardship and ₹20,000 for legal costs.

Arguments Presented

Myntra's Defense: Myntra argued that it was an online marketplace and an "intermediary" as defined under the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020, and Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 . It contended that the contract of sale was strictly between the complainant and the seller, Navya Hosiery. Myntra claimed it never possessed the product and that the discretion for returns or refunds lay solely with the seller. The company stated it had escalated the grievance to the seller, who reported that the correct product had been delivered in an "intact condition," and thus, Myntra had no further role. It also pointed out that the complainant had failed to make the seller, Navya Hosiery, a party to the case.

Complainant's Position: The complainant argued that her transaction was with Myntra. She placed the order on Myntra's platform, made the payment to Myntra, and sought a resolution from Myntra's customer service. She provided evidence of the ordered product, the incorrect product received, and her communications with Myntra's support team to substantiate her claim of deficient service.

Court's Reasoning and Key Observations

The Consumer Commission dismissed Myntra's arguments, focusing on the direct relationship between the platform and the consumer.

On Intermediary Liability: The court firmly rejected the claim that the seller was the solely responsible party. It observed that the contract for purchase was established between the complainant and Myntra, not directly with the seller. The judgment highlighted a critical point:

> "The complainant had placed the order for the product only with the opposite party and not to Navya Hosiery though invoice was issued in their name. The delivery of the product was also made only by the opposite party. Hence when, contract is only between the complainant and the opposite party for the purchase and selling of the product, the opposite party could now, cannot contend that they are not responsible for selling."

The Commission noted that by engaging with the customer's complaint instead of directing her to the seller, Myntra had implicitly accepted its role in the resolution process.

On Lack of Evidence: The Commission also found Myntra's defense lacking in proof. While Myntra claimed to have escalated the issue to the seller, it failed to produce any evidence of this communication or any enquiry conducted to verify the seller's claim that the correct product was delivered. The judgment stated:

> "No single piece of evidence was produced by the opposite party in support of their defence. In such facts and circumstances when the complainant had produced sufficient evidence... we are of the view that opposite party should be held responsible for the delivery of the wrong product to the complainant."

Final Verdict

Finding a clear "deficiency in service" on Myntra's part, the Commission partly allowed the complaint. It directed Myntra to: 1. Refund ₹474 for the product. 2. Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused. 3. Pay ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.

The amounts are to be paid within six weeks from the date of the order. This judgment reinforces the accountability of e-commerce platforms in ensuring that customers receive the correct products they order, regardless of whether the item is sold by a third-party vendor.