Man wins Rs 15,013 after Flipkart cancelled Rs 21,977 order ‘without consent’

‘Cancellation of confirmed order arbitrary’

• The order was duly confirmed, and the complainant was assured delivery within the stipulated period.
• The record does not disclose any circumstance attributable to the complainant which prevented the execution of the order.

• Rather, the documents establish that the complainant continuously pursued the matter and requested delivery of the product.
• It has been specifically pleaded by the complainant that he never sought cancellation of the order and was willing to wait for delivery.
• These documents clearly demonstrate that the complainant persistently requested fulfilment of the order and raised objections against the proposed cancellation.
• Significantly, no document has been produced by Flipkart to establish that cancellation was sought or consented to by the complainant.
• The contention of Flipkart that it is merely an intermediary platform and is not liable for acts of the seller does not merit acceptance in the peculiar facts of the present case.
• The order confirmation was generated through the Flipkart platform; all communications regarding shipment, delay, cancellation and refund were issued through the platform; customer grievances were entertained through the platform; and compensation was also offered through the platform.
• They failed to place on record any satisfactory explanation regarding the circumstances under which a confirmed order was cancelled after acceptance of consideration and after making the consumer wait for several days.
• In the absence of any cogent explanation, the unilateral cancellation of the confirmed order appears arbitrary and unjustified.

Flipkart can’t take shelter under intermediary status: Order

• Flipkart cannot completely absolve itself of responsibility towards the consumer merely by taking shelter under the plea of intermediary status.
• Once a consumer transacts through the platform and receives assurances regarding delivery and grievance redressal from the platform itself, the platform owes a duty of reasonable care towards the consumer.
• The document reveals that after cancellation of the complainant’s order, the same product was available on the platform at a substantially higher price.
• Though a mere increase in price by itself may not constitute a deficiency, the sequence of events assumes significance when viewed in conjunction with the delay in dispatch, repeated assurances, and eventual cancellation of a confirmed order.
• Such conduct gives rise to a legitimate apprehension that the confirmed order was not honoured after the escalation of the product price, thereby causing financial prejudice to the consumer.

Flipkart returned product without consent

The complainant placed an online order on September 23, 2025, with Flipkart for a product for a total consideration of Rs 21,977, along with the no-cost EMI and Flipkart Protect Promise options.

According to the assurance provided at the time of purchase, the product was to be shipped on or before September 29, 2025. However, Flipkart failed to dispatch the product within the stipulated period, and no proper status update or escalation mechanism was provided to the complainant.

It was further submitted that the complainant, upon raising grievances through various platforms, including email and social media, was misled by the customer support representatives of the opposite parties into cancelling the order on false assurances that the product would be available at a lower price.

Contrary to such representations, it was found that the product price had increased by more than Rs 4,000 and the no-cost EMI facility had also been withdrawn. Despite the complainant’s clear refusal to cancel the order and his willingness to wait for delivery, the opposite parties, arbitrarily and unilaterally, cancelled the order on October 10, 2025, citing “seller’s action”.

It is pertinent to mention that the Opposite Parties offered only a nominal and conditional compensation in the form of Flipkart coins and, despite repeated assurances regarding reimbursement of the price difference, failed to honour their commitments.

Flipkart’s stand

In the written submission, it has been averred that Flipkart is merely an intermediary/marketplace platform within the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, facilitating transactions between buyers and independent sellers, and is neither the seller nor the manufacturer of the product in question.

It was submitted that the product was sold by an independent seller, namely Kaushalya Logistics Limited, and any grievance about cancellation of the order lies solely against the said seller.

It was further contended that the entire sale consideration of Rs 21,977 has already been refunded to the complainant along with 1500 Flipkart coins as a goodwill gesture, and therefore, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed to Flipkart.

Significance of ruling

This judgment is significant because it holds e-commerce platforms accountable for unilateral order cancellations. It rejects the “intermediary” defence, ruling that platforms owe a duty of care when managing transactions. Consequently, consumers are entitled to compensation for price differences and mental agony caused by arbitrary cancellations.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Haryana contact: 1800-180-2087) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.