Kollam Consumer Commission Holds Underweight Online Supply a Defect; Flipkart Not Fully Immune as Intermediary

February 26, 2026 : The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam has held that supplying goods with lesser quantity than advertised amounts to a “defect” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and also constitutes misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice. The Commission further clarified that an e-commerce platform cannot be completely absolved of responsibility where repeated grievances are brought to its notice.

The Bench comprising Smt. S.K. Sreela (President) and Sri Stanly Harold (Member) passed the order in Jithin M Basheer v. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (C.C. No. 656/2024), decided on 26 February 2026.

Facts of the Case
The complainant, a law student, purchased bean bag grains through Flipkart on 07.09.2024 from seller Lakshmi Enterprises. The product was advertised as weighing 2 kg. However, upon delivery on 14.09.2024, the product weighed only 1.540 kg.

Despite raising complaints, subsequent replacements delivered on 23.09.2024 and 04.10.2024 weighed 1.470 kg and 1.680 kg respectively. The Commission noted that even after multiple replacements, the complainant never received the promised quantity, and each replacement took over a week, causing inconvenience.

The complainant submitted that the purchase was made to ensure ergonomic support following injuries, and the repeated supply of underweight goods resulted in physical discomfort, inconvenience, and mental distress.

Defence by Flipkart
Flipkart contended that it functioned merely as an intermediary facilitating transactions between independent sellers and buyers. It argued that discrepancies in product weight were solely attributable to the seller and that it does not verify product specifications. It also stated that replacements were facilitated in accordance with platform policies.

The seller, Lakshmi Enterprises, remained absent and did not contest the proceedings.

Findings of the Commission
Relying on the invoice and photographic evidence showing the actual weight of the products, the Commission held that the goods delivered did not conform to the advertised quantity.

Referring to Section 2(10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Commission observed that any shortcoming in quantity falls within the definition of “defect.” It further held that falsely representing the quantity of goods amounts to misleading advertisement under Section 2(28) and constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47).

Importantly, the Commission held that while Flipkart operates as an intermediary, it cannot be entirely absolved of responsibility when complaints are repeatedly raised through its platform. However, primary liability regarding product specifications was placed on the seller.

Relief Granted
Allowing the complaint, the Commission directed:

• Refund of ₹764 by the seller
• Payment of ₹10,000 as compensation for inconvenience, mental agony, and hardship
• Joint and several payment of ₹10,000 as litigation costs by both opposite parties

The amounts were directed to be paid within 45 days, failing which interest at 9% per annum would apply.

Significance
The ruling reinforces that short supply in online purchases is not a trivial discrepancy but a statutory defect. It also signals that e-commerce platforms, though intermediaries, may bear responsibility where consumer grievances are persistently ignored.