Archive · 5 Aug 2026
Man wins Rs 60,000 from Myntra over undelivered gold coin
A man bought a gold coin online from a website called Myntra.
He paid almost Rs 60,000 for it.
The website promised the coin would arrive on a certain day.
But that day came and went, and no coin arrived.
The man kept asking the website where his coin was.
After 41 days, the website cancelled his order and gave his money back without sending the coin.
The man was unhappy because he had waited a long time and gold prices were going up.
He took his complaint to a special consumer court.
The court said the website was wrong to just give the money back.
It ordered the website to pay the man Rs 60,000 as compensation and to cover court costs.
A consumer purchased a 5-gram 24k gold coin on Myntra on October 5, 2025, for Rs 59,750, with delivery scheduled for October 22, 2025.
The Kurnool District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed Myntra to pay Rs 50,000 in compensation and Rs 10,000 in litigation costs.
The platform retained the money for 41 days before unilaterally cancelling the order and refunding the purchase amount.
Myntra argued its role was limited to providing a marketplace and that an independent third-party seller was responsible for delivery.
The commission rejected that defense, ruling the platform cannot absolve itself of responsibility by shifting blame to the third-party seller.
- Who
- An unnamed consumer complainant, e-commerce platform Myntra, and the Kurnool District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
- What
- The commission found Myntra deficient in service and ordered it to pay Rs 50,000 compensation plus Rs 10,000 litigation costs for failing to deliver a gold coin
- When
- The coin was purchased on October 5, 2025, delivery was scheduled for October 22, 2025, and the commission's order is dated July 22
- Where
- Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, India
- Why
- The inordinate delay in delivering a high-value gold coin during rising gold prices, followed by a unilateral refund, constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice
Consumer Commission's Ruling
E-commerce Platform's Defense
Responsibility for delivery
Consumer Commission's Ruling
Having accepted payment and facilitated the sale, the platform owes a duty to ensure consumers receive products on time or are suitably compensated; it cannot shift all blame to the third-party seller.
E-commerce Platform's Defense
The platform is neither seller, manufacturer, nor producer; its role is limited to providing an online marketplace, and the independent third-party seller tasked with delivery was not impleaded as a party.
Refund as sufficient remedy
Consumer Commission's Ruling
Unilaterally refunding the purchase amount instead of supplying the product, particularly amid rising gold prices, caused financial loss and mental agony and amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
E-commerce Platform's Defense
The platform eventually refunded the full purchase amount after cancelling the order, which it presented as resolving the transaction with the consumer.
- Product
- 5-gram 24k gold coin
- Purchase price
- Rs 59,750
- Purchase date
- October 5, 2025
- Scheduled delivery
- October 22, 2025
- Money held before refund
- 41 days
- Compensation awarded
- Rs 50,000
- Litigation costs
- Rs 10,000
- Order date
- July 22