Gold coin ordered online never arrives, man wins Rs 60,000 from e-commerce platform

According to the complainant, he purchased a 5-gram 24k gold coin through the online platform on October 5, 2025, for Rs 59,750. He stated that the product was scheduled for delivery on October 22, 2025, but it was not delivered within the timeframe.

The complainant said that he repeatedly contacted the platform through emails and customer support channels seeking updates and delivery of the product. The complainant further alleged that the platform refused to cancel the order though he requested cancellation.

He stated that after retaining the money for 41 days, the platform eventually refunded the purchase amount after cancelling the order. Alleging mental agony, harassment, and unfair trade practice, the complainant moved the consumer commission.

‘Role limited to facilitation’

The e-commerce platform opposed the complaint and stated that an independent third-party seller was tasked to deliver the product, who was not impleaded as a party to the complaint. It further argued that the platform is neither the seller, manufacturer, nor producer of the product in question.

It stated that the product was sold by a third-party seller registered on the platform and its role is limited to providing an online marketplace to facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers.

Can’t shift all blame: Forum

The commission observed that the evidence proved the complainant had consistently insisted on delivery of the gold coin and had not sought cancellation of the order except on account of the prolonged delay. It further noted that the inordinate delay in delivering a high-value commodity such as 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 mental agony to the complainant.

The commission also rejected the platform’s defence that it merely acted as an intermediary. “Having undertaken to facilitate the sale and accepted the consideration, the Opposite Party (e-commerce platform) cannot completely absolve itself of responsibility by shifting the entire blame onto the third-party seller. 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 said.

Observing that the conduct amounted to deficiency in service, the commission awarded a consolidated compensation of Rs 50,000 towards financial loss, mental agony and inconvenience, along with Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses.

Takeaway

E-commerce platforms cannot escape liability by unilaterally refunding a customer’s money after failing to deliver an ordered product. Where a seller or platform retains the consumer’s payment, or fails to honour the assured delivery timeline, it may amount to deficiency in service.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Andhra Pradesh: 0866–2551431) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories:

Late by ‘317 minutes’ in reaching destination, man wins Rs 60,000 from Railways

41-seater bus ‘overcrowded’ with 96 passengers, man wins Rs 15,000 payout

‘Stolen SUV’ theft claim rejected over policy transfer, Delhi woman wins Rs 11.65 lakh