Amazon & Its Seller Penalized By Consumer Court Over Wrong Delivery, Refund Denial

Brief Facts of the Case:

On 26th December 2023, Mr. Harjas Singh Sodhi purchased an HP Pavilion Laptop for ₹61,990 via Amazon's online platform. The product was delivered the next day, but upon opening, he discovered that he had received an old IBM ThinkPad instead of the ordered HP laptop. Sodhi immediately contacted Amazon's customer care, which instructed him to photograph the incorrect item and upload it to a link sent to his mobile. He complied with all directions but received no resolution initially.

After following up on 30th December, Sodhi was asked to resend the photograph, this time including his name and the date, which he did. On 31st December, Amazon confirmed by email that the return process had started, promising a full refund. The product was collected from Sodhi's residence by an Amazon representative on 1st January 2024, and the collection was confirmed in the Amazon app.

However, on 7th January, the app displayed a message citing that the returned parcel was “lost in transit.” Despite several follow-ups and assurances, Amazon refused the refund on 19th January, claiming Sodhi had returned the wrong product and had “excessive refunds” on his account, purportedly violating their Use Policy. Sodhi sent several emails and letters to Amazon and the seller, challenging the denial and asking for a proper resolution, but received no satisfactory reply.

Feeling aggrieved by the ongoing delay, financial loss, and mental distress, Sodhi filed a formal complaint on 14th February 2024 before the East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against both Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd. and Appario Retail India Pvt. Ltd., the listed seller on the invoice.

Contention of the Complainant:

The complainant, Harjas Singh Sodhi, asserted that after purchasing an HP Pavilion Laptop from Amazon, he instead received an outdated IBM ThinkPad. He promptly contacted Amazon's customer care and submitted a photo of the incorrect product as instructed. Although Amazon initially assured him of a refund and collected the product, a message in the app later stated it was “lost in transit.” Subsequently, on 19th January 2024, Amazon refused the refund, alleging that a wrong product was returned and that the complainant had violated its Use Policy. The complainant maintained that this amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by Amazon and Appario Retail, causing him financial loss, mental harassment, and inconvenience

Contentions of Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 1):

Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd., the Opposite Party No. 1, had filed its written reply after the prescribed time limit of 30 days, as well as beyond the extended period of 15 days. Due to this delay in filing the reply, the Commission did not consider their response for adjudication. Consequently, Amazon's contentions were not formally taken on record and were not considered in their defense.

Contentions of Appario Retail India Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2):

Appario Retail India Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party No. 2, stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and them. They contended that the complainant had purchased the product directly from Amazon's online platform, and therefore, any issue regarding the wrong product delivered should be the responsibility of Amazon, not Appario Retail.

Appario further submitted that their company is a reputed seller and does not sell incorrect or wrong products to consumers. They also argued that the complaint had been filed against them by mistake and, therefore, should be dismissed against them.

Observations and Decision of the Commission:

The Commission found that the complainant received an obsolete IBM ThinkPad instead of an HP Pavilion Laptop and that Amazon rejected the refund after reporting the returned product was "lost in transit." Both Amazon and Appario Retail failed to deliver the correct product, did not provide evidence in their defense, and misled the complainant, resulting in financial loss and mental harassment.

The Commission held Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd. and Appario Retail India Pvt. Ltd. jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

Decision:

• Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd. and Appario Retail India Pvt. Ltd. Were directed to refund ₹61,990/- with 9% interest from 26th December 2023.
• They were also ordered to pay ₹10,000/- for mental agony and ₹7,500/- towards litigation costs.
• Compliance was required within 30 days, failing which 11% interest per annum would apply on the amounts until payment.

Case Title: MR. HARJAS SINGH SODHI Vs. AMAZON RETAIL INDIA PVT. LTD And Ors.

Case No.: CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. DC/78/CC/74/2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Order