A Delhi consumer commission has held Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after a customer who ordered a Realme smartphone allegedly received bars of Lifebuoy soap instead.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South II, Delhi, directed Flipkart to refund the purchase price of ₹10,574 with 7% annual interest. It also ordered the company to pay ₹5,000 as compensation for mental harassment and another ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.
The case arose from an order placed for a Realme Narzo 50A smartphone in Oxygen Blue with 128 GB storage. The invoice dated October 24, 2021, showed Luminary Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. as the seller.
FCRF’s Chief AI Officer Certification Returns on November 14 to Prepare Future AI Leaders
Customer Says Package Contained Soap Bars
The complainant, Mausam Meena, received the package on October 25, 2021 and alleged that it contained Lifebuoy soap bars instead of the mobile phone.
She subsequently contacted Flipkart and submitted documents, including her Aadhaar card, while seeking redressal.
In an email dated November 17, 2021, Flipkart informed her that the seller could not process the return request because images of the product had not been provided.
The complainant later sent further emails stating that she had screenshots supporting her claim. She also lodged a police complaint before approaching the consumer commission.
She sought ₹20,000 towards financial loss and ₹50,000 for mental agony and harassment.
Flipkart’s Intermediary Defence Rejected
Flipkart argued that it operated only as an online marketplace facilitating transactions between buyers and sellers and claimed protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
It contended that Luminary Lifestyle, as the seller, was responsible for the product and any refund.
Flipkart also said the complainant had been asked to provide identification and product photographs but had failed to do so. It referred to her purchase history and alleged that she had made several return requests.
Instakart, the logistics provider, separately submitted that it had only delivered the sealed package supplied by the seller.
The commission, however, rejected Flipkart’s argument that it could avoid liability merely by describing itself as an intermediary.
Commission Orders Refund, Compensation and Costs
The commission examined the pleadings, invoice, email correspondence and other documents. It also considered a video shown by the complainant, which was referred to in an order dated July 31, 2026.
According to the commission, the recording showed that the complainant had opened the package and received soap bars instead of the mobile phone.
The bench observed that an e-commerce platform facilitating transactions has an independent responsibility to provide customer support, logistical assistance, payment facilitation and effective grievance redressal.
It also relied on the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission decision in Rediff.com India Limited v. Ms. Urmil Munjal while considering Flipkart’s role in the transaction.
The commission directed Flipkart to refund ₹10,574 with interest at 7% per annum, pay ₹5,000 for mental harassment and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.
The company was given 60 days to comply. In case of default, the amount would carry interest at 8% per annum from the date of the order until realisation.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
