The order was passed on February 25, 2026, on a complaint filed by Khan Mansoor Ali Jan of Musheerabad under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Complaint over yoga mat purchase and failed return

According to the complaint, the consumer purchased an Olivio PVC Leather Yoga Mat, 10mm thickness on July 15, 2023 through the Flipkart platform for ₹620. The product was delivered the same day.

After receiving the item, the complainant alleged that the material and colour were different from the description shown on the website.

A return request was raised on July 18, 2023. However, the request was cancelled citing "damaged product", though no pickup agent visited the address, the complainant stated.

Subsequent return attempts on July 19 and July 22 were marked unsuccessful. Messages from the platform cited reasons such as the pickup agent being unable to contact the customer or locate the address.

Commission notes contradictory reasons for return cancellation

The complainant told the forum that the address had been correctly provided and the delivery had earlier been completed at the same location.

The commission observed that the reasons given for cancelling the return were contradictory.

While the first cancellation cited "damaged product", later attempts mentioned inability to contact the customer or locate the address.

The forum noted that the return request had been raised within the seven-day return policy period. However, repeated cancellations by the platform eventually led to the return window closing, preventing the complainant from initiating another request.

Forum holds e-commerce platform responsible

Flipkart argued that it operates as an intermediary platform connecting independent sellers and buyers and is protected under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

It also contended that the pickup could not be completed because the complainant allegedly failed to provide clear address details.

After examining the evidence and communication records, the commission held that the e-commerce platform had failed to handle the return properly.

The order stated that repeated cancellation of pickup requests within the return period and lack of proper resolution amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Compensation ordered for harassment

The commission ruled that the complainant had been forced to pursue the issue repeatedly without resolution.

It directed Flipkart Internet and Flipkart India to:

• Refund ₹620 paid for the product

• Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience

• Pay ₹2,000 towards litigation costs

The forum ordered compliance within 45 days of receiving the order. If the companies fail to comply, the ₹10,000 compensation will carry 12% annual interest from the date of default.

The complaint against the third opposite party, the seller Prajapati Brothers, was dismissed as no specific deficiency in service was attributed to them.

Photo by Rubaitul Azad on Unsplash