The Karnal District Consumer Commission has held e-commerce platform Myntra and a third-party merchant liable for service deficiencies after a customer received relabelled shoes instead of an actual size exchange.
A three-member bench comprising President Jaswant Singh and members Neeru Agarwal and Sarvjeet Kaur ordered the companies to refund the purchase price of Rs 1,029. In addition, the consumer forum awarded Rs 1,000 to the complainant as compensation and litigation costs.
The dispute arose after the consumer purchased a size-8 pair of shoes from Myntra through cash on delivery. Finding the shoes too loose, the customer requested a size-7 replacement. However, when the exchange package arrived on July 5, 2025, the consumer found that the company had sent another size-8 pair with a size-7 sticker pasted over the original size label.
The Complainant’s Allegations
Following the delivery, the customer contacted Myntra’s customer service department on July 5, 2025. While the support team acknowledged the error and promised a replacement, the consumer also sent an email to the firm, accusing the companies of intentionally mislabeling the shoes to cheat him from the outset.
Myntra’s Mall Analogy Rejected
In its written submission, Myntra argued that it operates as an electronic intermediary facilitating transactions between independent third-party sellers and customers. Comparing its digital storefront to a physical shopping mall, the e-retailer asserted that individual shop owners, rather than the mall management, should be held responsible for defective products.
However, the commission rejected this argument. In its ruling on July 2, the bench stated that photographs clearly proved the purchase and the subsequent exchange request. The panel declared that it was the duty of both Myntra and the seller to either provide the correct shoe size or refund the buyer’s money.
Seller Fails To Appear
The third-party merchant did not participate in the proceedings despite receiving a notice. Consequently, the consumer court decided on November 4, 2025, to proceed ex parte against the seller. The commission noted in its final order that the merchant had failed to present any evidence to counter the complainant’s claims.
