Myntra failed to deliver order, then cancelled without explanation: Customer lost chance to buy 5-gram gold at lower price; consumer court orders Rs 60,000 payout

Myntra has been ordered to pay Rs 50,000 in compensation and Rs 10,000 in litigation costs after a Kurnool consumer commission found that it failed to deliver a gold coin, blocked the customer from cancelling the order for over a month citing its own policy, and then cancelled it unilaterally without any explanation, by which time the price of gold had already moved up.

The order was passed on 22 July 2026 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.

What did the customer order on Myntra?


On 5 October 2025, the complainant, a 32-year-old resident of Nandyal in Kurnool district, placed an order on Myntra for a Kalyan Jewellers 24K (999 purity) Ayodhya Gold Coin weighing 5 grams. He paid Rs 59,750 via UPI. Myntra's platform confirmed the order and promised delivery by 22 October 2025.

The delivery did not happen.

The complainant followed up repeatedly through emails and chats, pressing for either delivery or cancellation. Myntra refused cancellation, telling him that gold products on its platform are non-cancellable under its Terms of Use.

Forty-one days after the order was placed, on 15 November 2025, Myntra cancelled the order on its own and refunded Rs 59,730, which was Rs 20 short of the amount paid. No explanation was given for either the cancellation or the deduction.

Why did the consumer court rule against Myntra?

Before the commission, Myntra argued that the gold coin was sold by a third-party seller and that Myntra was only an intermediary platform. It said it could not be held liable for non-delivery or delay under its Terms of Use.

The commission rejected this defence.

It held that Myntra had collected both the payment of Rs 59,750 and platform fees from the transaction. Having done so, the commission ruled, Myntra could not distance itself from responsibility for ensuring delivery or for compensating the customer when delivery failed. Collecting payment and fees, the commission found, placed Myntra squarely in the role of a service provider, not a passive intermediary.

What loss did the gold price rise cause?

The commission found that the 23-day gap between the promised delivery date of 22 October 2025 and the refund date of 15 November 2025 directly deprived the complainant of the opportunity to purchase gold at the price prevailing when he originally placed the order.

Using India Bullion and Jewellers Association price data, the commission calculated that the price rise during this period had caused the complainant a financial loss of Rs 4,297. By the time his money was returned, the same gold coin would have cost him more.

The commission held that this delay, combined with the unilateral cancellation without explanation and the short refund, constituted both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on Myntra's part.

Can e-commerce platforms claim to be just intermediaries?

The Kurnool commission's ruling adds to a growing body of consumer court orders across India that have pushed back against the intermediary defence used by e-commerce platforms when orders go wrong.

The commission's position was direct: a platform that collects consumer payment and charges fees for facilitating the transaction takes on responsibility for the outcome of that transaction. The label of intermediary does not override that responsibility when a consumer suffers a demonstrable loss.

What did the Kurnool consumer court order Myntra to pay?

The commission directed Myntra to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation for financial loss and mental agony, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.

If the amount is not paid within 45 days, the Rs 50,000 will attract interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date the complaint was filed, 27 January 2026, until full realisation.

Check the case judgement here: