In Soloman Lepcha v Amazon Seller Services Private Ltd. & Anr., the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Darjeeling, ordered Amazon and a listed seller to refund and compensate a customer who received the wrong camera and was later denied a refund despite returning it.
The Commission directed the opposite parties to pay a total of ₹4.68 lakh. This included a refund of ₹1.43 lakh towards the price of the camera, ₹2 lakh for mental harassment and agony, ₹1 lakh for negligence and deficiency in service, and ₹25,000 as litigation costs.
The bench, comprising President Tikendra Narayan Pradhan and Member Bhawana Thakuri, held that Amazon and the seller were responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Neither party appeared before the Commission or filed a written response to challenge the customer’s evidence.
The complainant had ordered a Fujifilm X-T5 digital camera worth ₹1.43 lakh through Amazon. However, when the package was delivered on February 10, 2025, it contained a Fujifilm X-T50, which was a different model from the one purchased.
After discovering the error, the customer contacted Amazon’s support team. He was advised to return the product and was assured that the amount would be refunded. The camera was subsequently collected and delivered back to the seller.
However, the refund request was later rejected on the ground that the returned product was “incorrect.” Further communications classified the returned camera as a “used or damaged item”, even though the customer’s complaint concerned the delivery of a different model.
The customer submitted emails, photographs and packaging details showing discrepancies in the product labels. The materials reportedly included two tags mentioning different camera models. Despite these documents, the refund was not processed, and the returned camera was also not sent back to him.
The customer then issued a legal notice, but the dispute remained unresolved. He eventually approached the consumer forum, alleging that Amazon and the seller had failed to refund the purchase price after accepting the returned product.
Amazon argued that it operated only as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complainant maintained that Amazon exercised substantial control over product listings, payment collection, delivery arrangements and return procedures, and therefore could not avoid responsibility.
Since Amazon and the seller did not contest the proceedings, the Commission accepted the complainant’s evidence as unrebutted. It observed, “There is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. There is also nothing to disbelieve the documents filed by the complainant has those documents remained unchallenged.”
Allowing the complaint, the Commission stated, “We are of the view that the complainants have been able to made out there case against the O.Ps (Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and its seller) and they are entitled to get the relief as prayed for.”
The entire amount must be paid within 45 days and will carry interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until its realisation.
——————————————–
Have a case update, article, or deal to share? Courtroom Today welcomes contributions from lawyers, law firms, and legal professionals. Write to contact@courtroomtoday.com
